Constitutional Court: Municipal Disaster Duties Arise Without a Formal Disaster Declaration

Residents of the Mhlontlo Local Municipality area lost their homes in an extreme weather event on 8 February 2022. They sought temporary emergency shelter from the local and district municipalities, which failed to provide any assistance. The applicants brought constitutional proceedings alleging breaches of their rights to housing (section 26) and human dignity. Both the High Court and the SCA dismissed the claims. The matter reached the Constitutional Court on further appeal.

The court held: The Court unanimously held that the municipalities' failure to assist the applicants was unlawful and unconstitutional. Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act imposes a peremptory obligation on the district municipality — as the entity primarily responsible for coordinating local disasters — to act using existing legislation and contingency arrangements even where no formal disaster declaration has been made under section 55. Under section 23(7), an unclassified disaster defaults to a local disaster, placing primary responsibility on the district municipality. The Court set aside the High Court and SCA orders, declared the municipalities' inaction unconstitutional, and remitted the matter to the High Court (before a different judge) to determine which applicants require temporary emergency shelter. The municipalities were ordered to file an affidavit-confirmed report within two months detailing how identified needs will be addressed.

Legal impact: This is binding precedent from the apex court that fundamentally clarifies the trigger for municipal disaster-response obligations. Municipalities can no longer rely on the absence of a formal disaster declaration to avoid acting. The judgment also develops the interplay between the Disaster Management Act, the Housing Act, and the National Housing Code in emergency shelter contexts — distinguishing this from eviction-related temporary accommodation. It strengthens the Plascon-Evans rule by confirming that bare denials unsupported by evidence cannot defeat applicants' claims on motion. The Court's sharp criticism of the 'deny, divert and deflect' approach signals that evasive municipal responses to disaster victims will attract judicial censure and adverse costs consequences. The Biowatch costs principle was reaffirmed to shield vulnerable constitutional litigants from adverse costs orders.