In Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom, the Constitutional Court had to interpret the meaning of the constitutional right of access to adequate housing and children's rights to shelter, as well as the state's duty in respect of these rights. The case involved about 900 adults and children from Wallacedene who were evicted from the private land they were unlawfully occupying. Following the eviction they camped on a sports field. They applied to the Cape High Court claiming that the state had a duty to provide them with adequate temporary shelter or housing. The High Court ruled in their favour on the basis that the state had a duty to provide shelter (including tents, portable latrines and a regular supply of water) to the children and parents. The state appealed against the judgment to the Constitutional Court. 1. What was the Constitutional Court's decision in the case? 2. Assuming the state provided you and your family with a house, what would you expect to get in order to consider it "an adequate house"? Refer to relevant case law to support your