South Africa’s democracy is 30 years old, and for 30 years the courts have been interpreting the right of access to adequate housing found in section 26 of the Constitution. Many parts of this right have been developed; one such development is that courts have found that the right includes a duty on the state to provide (temporary) emergency alternative accommodation in eviction matters to those facing homelessness. Throughout the years, courts have grappled with the suitability of this alternative accommodation; it finally seems like some clarity has been reached regarding when alternative accommodation would be considered suitable, due to the courts’ recent acceptance of alternative accommodation offered by the state as suitable. This article considers how the courts currently determine the suitability of emergency accommodation and what types of alternative accommodation has been accepted; it further explores the issues arising from these findings.

This Article explores the reach of Section 9 of South Africa’s democratic Constitution which entrenches the right to equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of the law in the light of the long legacy of apartheid geography. It argues that the equality clause has had its most profound impact in relation to areas of the law where discrimination is embedded in legal rules, perhaps most notably in the field of family law, and that it has had less impact in addressing patterns of material inequality that run along racial lines but that are not directly furthered by legislation or legal rules. It identifies some of the reasons why the equality clause is less effective at addressing patterns of racial inequality that arise from social and economic practices.

This article explores the responses of the South African competition authorities to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the socio-economic rights of consumers in relation to the price gouging of essential and medical supplies. After discussing the constitutional and legislative context of socio-economic rights and excessive pricing, it examines the first case in which the competition authorities were called upon to decide on the excessive pricing of medical supplies during COVID-19. The article finds that, while the competition authorities were swift to interpret the Competition Act widely and act against suppliers charging excessive prices, there remains a gap in South Africa's legislative framework as there is no specific legislation regulating price gouging during states of pandemic or disaster. The article identifies the need for legislative development and concludes by offering recommendations for addressing future incidents of price gouging.