VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J natural disasters. The City has also earmarked specified buildings as part of its emergency accommodation stock. At the time of the Housing Report, these buildings were occupied, already earmarked for households to be relocated in the future or not ready for occupation.77 [83] At the time of the proceedings in the High Court, the City‘s housing policy was reflected in a report filed in early 2009 (2009 Report). The Housing Report was not before that Court. The housing policy considered by the High Court, therefore, was slightly different from the Housing Report under consideration by this Court in that the former did not contain the Chapter 12 safeguards for those facing eviction by private landowners. The Reports are substantially similar, however. The 2009 Report likewise stated that the City was focused, ―without being obliged to do so, from its own resources and within its financial constraints, on the provision of shelter to occupiers of dangerous buildings, who qualify as being desperately poor and who find themselves in a true crisis situation.‖78 [84] The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the policy inflexibly and therefore irrationally excluded from temporary emergency accommodation those who are evicted by private landowners. This differentiation violated section 9(1) of the Constitution, which provides that everyone is equal before the law and has the right to 77 Id at paras 36-8. For example, the Alexandra Emergency facility was vacant and to be handed over to the City in early 2011 and Stand 902 New Doornfontein/Linatex was to commence development in the 2010/2011 financial year but potential beneficiaries were already identified. 78 2009 Report at para 6. 39