<Li> section 28 (1) (c) of the Constitution, which provides that children have the right to shelter . </Li> <P> It was contended that the minimum obligation incurred by the State in terms of section 26 entitled all the respondents, including those adult respondents without children, to shelter, and that the children's unqualified right to shelter included in section 28 (1) (c) placed the right of children to that minimum obligation beyond doubt . </P> <P> In support of their contention that they had complied with the obligation imposed on them by the Constitution, the appellants placed evidence before the court of the legislative and other measures they had adopted concerning housing . The central thrust of the housing development policy evidenced by the legislation and other measures was to provide citizens and permanent residents with access to permanent residential structures with secure tenure, ensuring internal and external privacy, and to provide adequate protection against the elements . In addition, the relevant metropolitan council had formulated a land program specifically to assist the metropolitan local councils to manage the settlement of families in crisis . The program recognised: </P> <Ul> <Li> the absence of provision for people living in crisis conditions; </Li> <Li> the unacceptability of having families living in crisis conditions; </Li> <Li> the consequent risk of land invasions; and </Li> <Li> the gap between supply and demand of housing resulting in a delivery crisis . </Li> </Ul>

President of the republic of south africa v grootboom 2000 (11) bclr 1169