Thursday, November 12, 2026 Nairobi bureau
Switch country Pan-Africa

Choose a country to see only its published stories. Location is estimated from your internet connection.

Timelines

Drakenstein Municipality v Eric Lolo and Others: timeline

The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa upheld an appeal by the Drakenstein Municipality against a judgment of the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town. The high court had found that the municipality breached its statutory and constitutional obligations to provide emergency housing for its residents, particularly Mr Eric Lolo and his family. The high court also found that section 5.3.2 of the municipality's Housing Selection Policy was constitutionally invalid. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that no proper case had been made on Mr Lolo's founding papers for the relief granted by the high court and that the municipality had not failed to discharge its obligations.

Coverage through 2026-10-29 · Sources checked 2026-11-12

What this record covers

Historical case record based on the cited official account. Later developments may not be covered.

Position at the coverage date

Upheld [s1]

Record details

Case
Drakenstein Municipality v Eric Lolo and Others (625/2023) [s1]
Municipality's Obligations
The municipality had breached its statutory and constitutional obligations to provide emergency housing for its residents. [s1]
High Court's Findings
The high court found that the municipality had failed to discharge its obligation to provide both emergency and formal housing to its residents and to make provision from its own funds for emergency housing. [s1]
Housing Selection Policy
The high court found that section 5.3.2 of the municipality's Housing Selection Policy deprived rural residents who had been on the waiting list for the municipal housing for a substantial period of time from benefiting from the 20% housing allocation reserved for rural residents in all municipal housing projects. [s1]
SCA's Findings
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that no proper case had been made on Mr Lolo's founding papers for the relief granted by the high court and that the municipality had not failed to discharge its obligations. [s1]
Municipality's Policy
The municipality had an emergency housing policy which provided that the municipality would also contribute its own financial resources to complement those of the provincial government in the provision of housing. [s1]
Financial Resources
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was no basis for the finding by the high court that the municipality had to provide its own funding for housing, exclusive of provincial contribution. [s1]

The sequence

4 documented milestones. Highlighted entries mark turning points. Dates retain the precision of the source.

  1. event

    Registration on Housing Waiting List

    Mr Lolo registered on the housing waiting list with the Drakenstein Municipality.

    Evidence [s1] Link to this event

  2. event

    Retrenchment

    Mr Lolo was retrenched from work on the farm.

    Evidence [s1] Link to this event

  3. litigation

    Eviction Proceedings

    The farm owner Green Willows instituted eviction proceedings in the Drakenstein Magistrates' Court against Mr Lolo and those who lived with him.

    Evidence [s1] Link to this event

  4. ruling · Turning point

    Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment

    The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the appeal against the judgment of the high court and set aside the high court's order.

    Evidence [s1] Link to this event

Sources & evidence

  1. [s1] Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

    Official case account

    Official court source · Accessed 2026-11-12

Read the case details and outcome →

Public update history

— First sourced edition. Coverage dates apply.

— Titles and explanatory text passed the copywriting and source-consistency checks. Sources and data are unchanged.