In a final ruling that would help advance women’s rights - the Equality Court declared the City's housing policy inconsistent with the country’s Constitution as it discriminated against women.
The ruling comes after the Women's Legal Centre Trust and a resident, Gadijah Abdullah, challenged the policy and its continued implementation for its failure to recognise women as co-purchasers or co-owners of housing units received from the City of Cape Town.
The City brought a counter application in which it sought ostensibly the same relief as that of Abdullah and the Women’s Legal Centre Trust.
The Women’s Legal Centre (WLC) said the ruling impacted the lives of an estimated 12 000 delayed transfer units allocated in terms of the City’s policy, known as the “housing scheme constructed by the local authority”.
A further 52 249 applicants who had received housing assistance up to March 31, 1998 might be included in the “allocation of delayed transfer units in terms of the erstwhile policy,” the centre added.
It also pointed out that in terms of the policy, women could not sign the transfer agreement with the City when their housing units became available for transfer and their allocation was solely made to male beneficiaries, leaving women needing access to housing.
According to the WLC, Abdullah's property was available for transfer regarding the housing allocation policy after her husband concluded a sale agreement.
After divorcing her spouse, she approached the City to ask about transferring the sale of the property to her name.
The Women’s Legal Centre (WLC) and Legal Resources Centre (LRC) took the matter to the courts after she faced hurdles with the City.
The court order now required the City to transfer the housing units to men and women co-owners equally.
After the matter was heard in September, the court granted the applicants an interim interdict, stopping the City from passing transfer to any of the housing units until the City had given notice to all parties who would be impacted by the order and who would want to oppose the relief that was being sought.
The court ordered this week that the sale agreements concluded with married men be amended to reflect the woman spouses as at the date of allocation as co-purchasers with the men beneficiaries and in equal shares.
In terms of the ruling, the City was also required to implement a communications campaign to inform woman beneficiaries of the relief granted in the order.
The WLC welcomed the ruling and said the policy led to women being vulnerable to eviction because they had no proof that they were co-purchasers or co-owners of the housing unit.
They encouraged women who thought they were beneficiaries of housing units or were impacted by the transfer delays to contact their local housing offices to ensure that their rights to co-ownership were recognised and protected.
“Women are prone to homelessness because they could never be eligible for houses under any social housing scheme because they would have benefited under their husbands,” said the centre.
The City also welcomed the order and said even before it was granted by the court it had engaged in media campaigns calling on all women affected by the policy to approach the housing offices to include them in the sale agreements where applicable to them.
“The City will continue doing so,” said Mayco member for Human Settlements, Malusi Booi.
Weekend Argus