ConCourt to Cape Town: where you build housing is a constitutional question
Adonisi and Others v Minister for Transport and Public Works, Western Cape and Others; Minister of Human Settlements and Another v Minister for Transport and Public Works, Western Cape and Others — Constitutional Court · (CCT 126/24; CCT 128/24) [2026] ZACC 29
A note on our sourcing
The case name, case numbers and neutral citation come from SAFLII's and the Constitutional Court's own listings, but the full judgment text returned an access error (HTTP 403) on SAFLII, LawLibrary and Polity at verification time. The holdings and orders described here are cross-checked across three independent secondary sources — Daily Maverick, IOL and the SAHRC's official media statement — which agree on the outcome, the s26 location finding, the regulation invalidity and the three-month reporting order. Read the judgment itself before relying on it in submissions.
What happened
The Western Cape Provincial Government sold the vacant Tafelberg site in Sea Point — one of the best-located pieces of publicly owned land in Cape Town — to the Phyllis Jowell Jewish Day School for R135 million, rather than releasing it for affordable housing. A nurse, Thozama Adonisi, backed by Reclaim the City and Ndifuna Ukwazi, challenged the sale. The Western Cape High Court set it aside in 2020; the Supreme Court of Appeal reversed that in 2024. The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous judgment by Mhlantla J, has now restored the outcome: the disposal was unlawful, the Province failed to meaningfully engage the public before selling, and both the Province and the City breached their constitutional housing obligations in the Cape Town CBD and Sea Point.
Why it made the news
It is a court telling South Africa's best-run-on-paper metro that its housing map still reproduces apartheid geography — a direct rebuke of Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis's public position that 'spatial apartheid' is outdated political language. Coming amid an affordability crisis that has pushed working people ever further from the city centre, the ruling landed as a national argument about who gets to live near work.
For lawyers & law students
The doctrinal shift is that location becomes part of the reasonableness enquiry under s26(2), not a policy afterthought — Mhlantla J's formulation is that the location of housing must be treated as a relevant factor when the state disposes of well-located public land. Two practical consequences follow. First, an organ of state alienating public property must weigh its housing potential before contracting, which turns Grootboom-style reasonableness review into a live constraint on land-disposal decisions. Second, the Court invalidated Western Cape Land Administration Act regulations that allowed public participation only after a disposal contract was concluded — meaningful engagement that arrives post-signature is no engagement at all — with that invalidity suspended for 12 months. Both spheres were ordered to report to the High Court within three months on their affordable-housing pipelines and budgets, so this is supervisory relief, not a once-off declarator.
For citizens
When government sells off well-located public land, it now has to ask first whether that land could have housed people who need to live near work and transport — and it has to genuinely consult the public before the deal is signed, not after.
Get new Case Watch posts by email
No account needed — just new legal content, when there’s something worth reading.