VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J up homeless on the street. All parties rely on the Constitution, statutory law giving effect to the Constitution and judgments of this Court. [4] The City applies for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.3 That Court dismissed an appeal against a judgment of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg4 (High Court). Blue Moonlight and the Occupiers are the respondents. The Occupiers also apply for leave to cross-appeal, should leave to appeal be granted to the City. Lawyers for Human Rights, a South African non-profit organisation that provides free legal services, was admitted as a friend of the Court (amicus curiae). [5] This judgment first provides some background on the factual and litigation history of this matter. Thereafter an overview of the applicable constitutional, legal and policy framework is given. Then an analysis based on the findings of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the submissions of the parties to this Court follows. The interpretation of Chapter 12 of the National Housing Code5 (Chapter 12) and the constitutionality of the City‘s housing policy as set out in its 2010 Housing Report (Housing Report) are at the heart of the matter.6 The question of the resources available to the City has also been raised. This case does not deal directly with a programme, or measures, to realise progressively the right of access to adequate 3 City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another 2011 (4) SA 337 (SCA). 4 Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd v The Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue and Another, Case No 11442/2006, South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, 4 February 2010, unreported. 5 National housing programme: housing assistance in emergency circumstances (April 2004 Final Version). 6 The National Housing Code and the Housing Report are briefly explained in [27]-[28] below. 3