south African case law

8/13/2019 south African case law

1/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v M0DD5 RKU P BQERBERY (PTY) LTDZOOS (5) SA. 3 3CC7. Th e Registrar will not accept docu me nts in re la tion to an appeal cn the Adate of the hearing of that appeal.8 . Each comm unica t ion f rom ny prac t i t ione r d i rec ted to the P re s iden t o fthe Cour t o r any pre s id ing Judge mus t be done th rough the of f ice s o fthe Registrar* and not directly w ith that J udge.0 If an


2/27

4 PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MGDDER KUP B O t H O E R YPTY1 TO2005 (5) SA 3 CCA The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Conn against adecision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in which an interdicti ssued aga ins t the appl ican ts in a High Cou r t was uphe ld . I t appea red th a tduring the 1990s the respondent 's farm was illegally occupied by peopleevicted from a nearby informal settlement by the local c ity council. The citycouncil a ler ted the respondent to the unlawful occupation of its land andB gave it notice under s 6(4) of the Preven tion of I llegal Eviction from endOcc upat ion of La nd Act 19 of 1998 ( the Act) requir ing it to institu teev ic t ion proceedings aga ins t the un lawful occupie r s . The r e spondent ' sa ttitude was that it was the c ity council 's responsibility to do so. Therespo nden t then la id chargcs of trespass against the occupiers Th oseconvic ted were given warnings and released, but they simply went back toC th e farm and r e sum ed the i r occupa t ion . Th e r e spondent th en sought toremove the occupiers from its farm with the help of police and other organso ft h eState, including the c ity council, but received no co-ope ra t ion . It alsooffered to sell the affected portion of the farm ro the c ity council a t sinegot iab le pr ice , bu t no th ing came of i t . The r e spondent then approacheda Local Division for an eviction order , which was granted. The orderD autho rised the Sheriff to enlist the assistance of thepolice in carrying out theevictions Th e police refused to help becaus e it regar ded the disp ute as apr iva te ma t te r between the r e spondent and the occupie r s , fo rc ing theSheriff , however, to enlist the a id of a pr ivate security company toimplementthe evictions T o these costs the Sheriff wanted adepos it of Rl ,8million which the respondent was unable to pay. The result was that theE f a rm cont inued to be occupied by a squa t te r popula t ion of 40 000 , There spondent then tu rned to a P rovinc ia l Div is ion , which imposed a s t ruc -tura l in te rd ic t r equi r ing the S ta te to p re sen t a comprehens ive p lan to theCourt and to the other parties indicating the steps it would take toimplement the Cour t 's orde r . The S ta te appea led to the S C A , whichsubs tan t ia l ly uphe ld the judgment of the Pretoria High Cour t whi le a l te r ingF the orde r against die State by dropping the r equi r ement tha t i t should sh ow

how it intended to evict die occupiers, requir ing instead that it paycompensa t ion to the r e spondent fo r the loss occas ioned by the un lawfulo c c u p a t i o n . T h e c o m p e n s a t i o n w as to be c o m p u t e d in terms of theExpropriation Act.In an application by the State For leave to appeal against the decision of the SCA,G the S ta te cha l lenged the findings of the SCA tha t the r e spon dent ' s r igh t toprope r ty un de r s 25(1) o f the Cons t i tu t ion of the Republ ic o f South Af r icaAc t f08 of 1996 had been breached , a rgu ing tha t s 25 ( ) app l ied to S ta teconduct only and not to the conduct of pr ivate individuals. This ra ised theques t ion of whe the r s 2 5 0 ) had hor iEoma i appl ica t ion . The S t a te a lsochallenged the f inding that the occupiers ' r ights to access to adequateH hous ing a s cmrenc hed in s2 6 H ) and (2) o f the Cons t i tu t ion had beenbreached . The S ta te ' s second conten t ion was tha t the r e spondent was no tentitled to its re lief because it had failed to apply in time for an urgentev ic tion a s in tended u i ide r ihe provis ions of s 5 of the Ac t . The S ta te a rguedtha t had the ev ic t ion proceedings been ins t i tu ted dur ing May 2000 , theevictions would have been man ageab le and affordable . Th e view ofi the State was in effect that the responsibility for the imp lem entat ion of theevictions had rested solely on the respondentHeld, that the obligation that s 1Cc) of the Cons t i tu t ion imposed on the S ta te touphold the rule of law meant that i t had to provide the necessarymechanisms for c i t iz ens to r e so lve d ispu te s tha t a rose be tween them, andthat that obligation had its corollary in the r ight or entitlement of everyJ pe r son to have access to co rn s or o the r indep enden t fo rum s provided by


3/27

PRESIDENT OP THE RSA v MOQDERKUP BOEPOERY (PTY) LTO2005 (5) SA 3 5CCthe State for the sett lement of such dispute. 1; as provided in s 34 of die ACons t i tu t ion . (Parag raph [ 9] at 2 1 A - C )Held, further, that i t was obvious that only die State held the key to the solutiono f the responden t ' s p rob lem. The on ly ques t ion was whether the S ta te wasobliged to help in resolving i t , in other words, whether the respondent wasenti t led to any rel ief from the State. {Paragraph f 1 2] a t 2 1 G - H )Held , fu r ther , tha t the ob l iga tion on the S ta te wen t fu r the r than d ie mer e 8p rov i s ion o f the mechan isms and in s t i tu t ions re fe r red to above . I t was a l soob l iged to t ake reasonab le s t eps , where poss ib le , to ensu re tha t l a rge-sca ledisruptions in the social fabric did not occur in the wake of the execution ofcou r t o rders , thus unde rmin i ng the ru le o f law. Th e p rec i se na tu re o f theState 's obligation in any part icular case and in respect oFany part icular rightdep end ed on wh at was rea sona ble in the l ight of the right or interest at risk , Cfis well as on the circu mst ance s of each case . (Parag raph [43) at2 l H r t - 2 3 B . )

Held-, fu r ther , tha t the pos i t ion o f the respond en t was agg rava ted by theineffectiveness of die mechanisms provided by the State to resolve i tsp rob lem. The ev ic t ion Order g ran ted by the High Cour t was unen fo rceab lebecaus e the occup iers had nowh ere to so . (Parag raph [44 ) a t 22B -E. ) DHe d>fu r ther , tha t i t was un rea sonab le to expec t 3 p r iva te en t i ty such as theresponden t to bear the S ta te ' s ob l iga t ion to p rov ide d ie occup iers wi thaccom moda t ion . Large-sca le l and invas ions th rea tened fa r more than thep r iva te r igh t s o f s ing le p roper ty owners , and had ser ious imp l ica t ions fo rStabil ity and pub lic peace Failu re by the State to act in an a ppro pria tema nne r wou ld mean tha t the respo nden t , and o ther? m i t s pos i t ion , wou ld Ebe unab ic to look to the S ta te and i ts o rgans to p ro tec i them from invas ionso f the i r p roper ty , a rec ipe fo r anarchy . (Parag raph f 45 ] a t 2 2 E -G )Heidi further, that i t should have been obvious to the State that i t was not possiblein the present case to rely on die usual mechanisms for the execution ofeviction orders . It would not have been consistent with the rule of law.(Parag raph [47 ] a t 221 -J ) FHdd, furth er, that the State h ad bee n obliged to do more t han i i had to fulfi l therequ i rem en ts o f the ru le o f l aw and thus fu l f il the respo nden t ' s r igh t s unders 36 o f the Cons t i tu t ion . I t had been un rea sonab le fo r the S ta te to remainpass ive wh i le the responden t ' s own hands were t i ed by the c i rcums tances( P a r a g r a p h [ 4 8 ] a t 2 3 A - B )Hdd. furth er, that the State had bre ach ed i ts obligation to take the available Greasonab le s t eps (exp rop r ia t ing the p roper ty , p rov id ing o ther l and ) toensu re e f fec t ive rd ie f fo r the re spond en t .Held , fu r ther , tha t no accep tab le reason had been p ro ffe red fo r the S ta te ' s fa i lu reto act . [t had been obliged to take reasonable s teps to ensure that dierespondent was provided with effective rel ief. By fail ing to do anything theSta te had b reached the responden t ' s cons t i tu t iona l r igh t to an e f fec t ive Hreme dy as requ i red by ru le o f law and s 34 o f the Cons t i tu t ion (Parag raphs[50} and [5 ] a t 23F -I . )Held, as to the S ta te ' s s econd con ten t ion (vis tha t the responden t was to b lamebecause i t had fa i l ed to in s t i tu te ev ic t ion p roceed ings under the u rgencyprovisions ofs 5 o f the Act ) , tha t a l though there was no doub t tha t ownersof prope rty bore die prim ary responsibil i ty to take reaso nable s teps to tp ro tec t the i r p roper ty , i t was by no means c lear tha t the responden t wou ld

have been ab le to sa t i s fy the requ i remen ts o f s 5 - The responden t ' s case fo reviction was not based on any of those factors but s imply on the fact that i thad be en dep r ived o f the en joymen t o f i t s ngh t o f ownersh ip o f the l and inques t ion . I t was in add i t ion c lear tha t the responden t had ne i ther been id lenor fai led to assert i ts rights from the outset . It was the local municipali ty J


4/27

6 PRESIDENT OF THE ASA v MQ0OERKL1P BOEROERY (PTY) H O2005 f5) SA 3 CC

A tha t had re fu sed to co -opera te wi th the respond en t in the search fo rs o l u ti o n s . ( P a r a g r a p h s [ 2 9 ] - [ 3 1 ] a s 1 S D - 1 9 C )Held, further, that i t also had to be kept in mind that s 4 and s 6(1) of the Act didin fact envisage the involvement of the State in evictions from privateproperty , in the present case the municipali ty could i tself have insti tutedev ic t ion p roceed ings aga in s t the occup iers when the responde n t dec l ined toB d o s o ( P a r a g r a p h ( 3 2 ] a t 1 9 C D - F )Held, fu r ther , tha t the SCA had been co rrec t in finding that the respondent couldnot be blamed for any delay in inst i tuting eviction proceedings for thefa i lu re to cons umm ate the ev ic t ion o rder T he resp onden t ' s conduc t in i t spu rsu i t o f an e f fec t ive so lu tion h3d been p rude n t an d reasonab le , and evenif a delay on i ts pan had occurred, i t was not sufficient to deny i t the rel iefC i t was enti t led to . Acc ordingl y, the Sta te 's con tent ions in that regard had tofa i l (Parag raph [38 ] a t 20G/ I- I -1 . )iM fu r ther , as to app rop r ia te re l i e f fo r the un lawfu l occupa t ion o f theresponden t ' s p roper ty and the v io la t ion o f i t s r igh t s , tha t the fo l lowingfac to rs had to be t aken in to accoun t : (a ) tha t the occup iers , had (b rmdthemselves in to a se t t l ed commun i ty and bu i l t homes fo r themselves ; (h )D tha t the occup icrs had jj o o ther op t ion bu t to remain on the responden t ' sp roper ty i (c) tha t the i r inves tmen t in to the i r own commun i ty on theresponden t ' s fa rm had to be weighed aga in s t the f inanc ia l was te tha t the i rev ic t ion wou ld rep resen t ; (d) that the cost of avoiding such a waste wouldhe minimal; (e) that the State was and had always been involved in mattersconcern ing the un lawfu l occupa t ion o f the responden t ' s fa rm; (J ) tha t the State had given the res pon den t notice in ter ms of s 6(4) of the Act toin s t i tu te ev ic t ion p roceed ings and tha t the responden t had made var iousreques t s fo r as s i s t ance f rom var ious o rgans o f S ta te , and Cg)tha t the S ta te ' sresponses had been cons i s t en t ly nega t ive and unhe lp fu l . (Parag raph [54 ] a t2 4 G - 2 5 B )Held, fu r ther , tha t app rop r ia te re l i e f mean t e f fec t ive re l i e f C ompe nsa t io n m theF fo rm o f damag es had severa l advan tages over o ther forms ( fo r examp le thedecla rator y order suggeste d by the State (less effective) or exp ropria t ion(possiWy a breach of the rule of separation of powers)), and the difficulty ofquan t i fy ing i t cou ld be met by resc u ing to s 12 o f the Exp rop r ia t ion Ac t 63o f 1975 . (Parag raphs [58 j - [60 j and |&3) ai 2 f iB~G and 27B )Held, acco rd ing ly , tha t the award o f compensa t ion made by the SCA was theG mos t app rop r ia te remedy in the in s tan t cas*; . Leave to appea l d i smissed savefor the costs order ma de in the SCA It followed that if the State decide d toexpropriate ' , the sum to be awarded as compensation would have to be seto ff aga in s t the compen sa t ion to be given fo r the exp rop r ia t ion . (Parag ra ph(65 ] a t 27D-H. )Th e Con s t i tu t iona l Cou r t rep laced the o rd er o f the SCA wi th one dec la r ing tha t* .H (a ) the S ta te had , by fa i l ing to p rov ide an app rop r ia te mech an ism to g iveeffec t to the ev ic t ion o rder o f the Johannesbu rg High Cour t , in f r inged theresponden t ' s t igh t s under s 34 o f the Cons t i tu t ion ; (b) the responden t wasen t i t l ed to payme n t o f comp ensa t ion by the Depa r tm en t o f Agr icu l tu re andLan d Aft ' . ins in rcspcct of the land occu pied , (c) the res iden t s were en t i t l edto occupy the land unti l al ternative land was made available to them by theI S ta te o r the p rov inc ia l o r io ta au tho r i ty ; (d) the compensa t io n had to beca lcu la ted in t e rm s o f s 12 (1 ) o f the Exp rop r ia t ion Act , and (e) if the part ieswere unab le to t each ag reemen t regard ing d ie p lead ings to be f i l ed , andd iscovery , in spec t ion , and o ther mat te rs o f p roc edu r e re la t ing there to , l eavewas g ran ted to any o f the par t i es to make app l ica t ion to a High Cour thav ing ju r isd ic t ion in t e rms o f Ru le 33 (5 ) o f the Un i fo r m Ru les o f Cou r t fo rJ d i rec t ions (Parag r aph | 6S] a t 28 C -H )


5/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MOOOERKUP BOEERDEOY SPTY) LTD290 (5) SA 3 7CC

A n n o t a t i o n s : ARepor ted ca se s

Banuaiync v Banna ty ie {'Commission for Gender Equality, a s Amicus Cur iae )2003 (2) SA 363 (CC) (2003 (2) BCLR 111) ; r e f e r r ed toCarmichdi v Minister of Safety and Security and Anadyr (Centre far AppliedLegal Studies Intervening) 200] (4) SA 938 (CC) (2001 (10) BCL R 995) : greferred toChief Leiapo v North I'K'seAgricultural Bank and A nether 2000 (1) SA 409(CC) (1999 (12) BCLR 1420) : d ic tum in pa ra {22} appl iedDe Langs v Smuts NO and Others \ Modder : ip Bocniery(Ply) Ltd (Agri S/-1and Legal Reuni te s Centre, Amici Curiae) , 'Prezidtm ofthe Republic of South Africa and Others v McdJerHip Bocniery (Pty) L(d(Agri 5/ 1 and Legal Resources Centre, Amici Curiae .) 2004 (6) SA 40(SCA) (2004 (8) BCLR 821): l imited leave to appeal against grantedModderhhp Boerdcry (Edms) Bph v President van die Republieh van Suid- p

Afnka enAndere [2003] I All SA 463 (T) referred toMc'ddoklip Boetdery (Ply) LtdAioddcr Bast Squatters rind Another 2001 (4>SA 385 (W): referred toPort Elisabeth Mun lapalitvv Various Occupiers2005 ( I ) SA 217 (CC) (2004(12) BC LR 1268): dic ta in paras (28] and (37] appliedS ta tu te s

The Cons t i tu t ion of the Republ ic o f South Af r ica Ac t , s s 1 i'rj and 34: seeJum's Statutes of Sotuh Africa 200415 vol 5 a t 1-136 and 1-139The Expropr ia t ion Ac t 63 of 1975 , s f2: se e JinaStatute, of South Africa200415 vol 6 a t 2-263

HA p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e t o a p p e a l a g a i n s t a d e c i s i o n o f t h e S u p r e m eC o u r t o f A p p e a l ( r e p o r t e d a t 2 0 0 4 ( 6 ) S A 4 0 ) . T h e f a c t s a p p e a r f r o m t h er e a s o n s f o r j u d g m e n t .D S Fourie SC ( w s t h S K Haintti) f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t s .A Loiav SC ( w i d i N Jame van Nieuzmihmzeii) f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n tG L Gwbkr S C ( w i t h J L Gildenhuys) f o r t h e f i r s t amicus curiae.W Tmigove SC ( w i t h M Morton) f o r t h e s e c o n d , t h i r d a n d f o u r t h amtcicunac.Cur adv vuhPo'.tca ( M a y 1 3 ) J


6/27

8 PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MGDDERKUP BOtHOERY PTY1tTO2005 (5) SA 3 CC

A Langa ACJ:{ ] Th is i s an app l icat ion for leave co appeal against the dec is ion of theS u p r e m e C o u r t o f A p p e a l , 1 i n w h i c h , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e S t a t e w a so r d e r e d to c o m p e n s a t e M o d d c r k i i p B o e r d e r v ( P t y ) L t d ( M o d d c r k i i p ) ,a pr ivate comp any , for the v io lat ion o f it s proper ty r ights und ers 2 5 ( 1 ) 2 read with s 7( 2) 3 of the Const i tu t ion , as weU as the s 26

q ' Modderfomein Squatters, Greater Bencm City Council v Modderklip B csrdesy(Pty) Ltd (Agri SA and Legal Resource Ciiurt, A mict Curiae ,) ; President of duRepublic of South Africa and Other s v Modderklip Bmrdiiy (Pty) Ltd (Agri $ A midLegal Resources Cenm , Amic t Cur iae ; 2004 (6) SA 40 (SC A) .5 Section 25 reads:' (1) No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of genera?appl ica t ion , and no law may pe rmi t a rb i t r a ry depr iva t ion of p rope r ty .0 (2) Prope rty may be expro priated only in term s of law of general applica-t i o n (a) for a public pur pose or in the public interest; and(b) sub jec t to comp ensa t ion , the amou nt o f which and the t ime and man ne rof payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected ordec ided or approved by a cour t ._ (3) Th e amo unt o f the comp ensa t ion and the r ime and man ne r of payme nt^ must be jus t and equi tab le , r e f lec ting an equi tab le ba lance be tween the publ icinterest and the interests of those affected, having regard to a lt re levantc i r cumstances , inc lud ing(a ) , the cur ren t use of the prope r ty ;(b) the history of the acquisitio n and me of the pro perty ,(c) the mark et value of the property ;p (d) the extern of direct State investme nt and subsidy h the acquisition andbene f ic ia l c ap i ta l improvement o f the prope r ty ; and(c) ;the purpo se of the expropr ia t ion .(4) For the purposes of th is sec t ion(a ) the publ ic in te re s t inc ludes the na t ion ' s com mitm ent to land r e form, andto reforms to bring about equitable access to a il South Africa 's naturalr e sources ; andG (k) prop erty is no t limited to land,(5) The S ta te mus t take r ea sonable leg isla tive and o the r measu re s , wi th in i t savailable resources, to foster cond ition s that enable csm ens to gain access toland on an equitable basis.(6) A person or community Whose tenure of land is legally insecure as aresult of past racially discr iminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent

w provid ed by an Act of Parliam ent, e ither to tenur e which is legally secur e or to" compa rab le r edre ss ,(7) A pe r son or comm uni ty d isposse ssed of p rope r ty a f te r 39 June 3 933 asa result of past racially discr iminatory Jaws or practices is entitled, to the extentprovided by an Act of Parliament, e ither to restitution of that property or toequi tab le r edre ss .(8) No provision of this section may impede the State from taking legisla tive1 and o the r measure s to ach ieve land , wa te r and re la ted r e form, in orde r toredress the results of past racial discr imination, provided that any departurefrom the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions ofs 36(1) .(9) Parliament must enact the legisla tion referred to in ss (6) '1 Sec t ion 7(2) r eads :'T he Sta te must respe ct, protect , prom ote and fulf il the r ights in the Bill ofJ Rights.*


7/27

PRESIDENT OF THE BSA V WOODERKUP SOEflDERY (PTY) LTD ' 9I.ANGA ACJ 2C05 (5) SA 3 CCrights' 1 o f t h e u n l a w f u l o c c u p i e r s o f M o d d e r k h p ' s f a r m . T h e S u p r e m e ACo urt of App eal a lso he ld that Mo dder k l ip 's equal i ty r ights unders s 9 ( 1 ) 5 a n d 9 ( 2 )6 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n h a v e b e e n b r e a c h e d .F a c t u a l b a c k g r o u n d[2] T he fac t s re levant to the i ssues are se t out in the judgm ent of the gSupreme Court of Appeal . I t wi l i su f f ice to repeat a f ew sa l ien t fac t s .[ 3 ] T h e f a r m M o d d e r k i i p a d j o i n s D a v e y t o n T o w n s h i p i n B e n o n i o n t h eE a s t R a n d . D u r i n g t h e 1 9 9 0 s , b e c a u s e o f o v e r c r o w d e d c o n d i t i o n s i n t h etownsh ip , a number of i t s re s idents began se t t t ing on the s tr ip of landb e t w e e n t h e t o w n s h i p a n d M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a r m . T h e s tr i p b c c a m e k n o w n Ca s t h e C h r i s H a n i i n f o r m a l s e t t l e m e n t . T h e m u n i c i p a l i t y r e a c t e d b ye v i c t i n g t h e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e C h r i s H a n i s e t t l e m e n t . I n M a y 2 0 0 0 a b o u t4 0 0 o f t h e m m o v e d o n t o M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a r m w h e r e t h e y e r e c t e d s o m e 5 0i n f o r m a l d w e l l i n g s .{ 4 } I n M a y 2 0 0 0 a t h e B e n o n i C i t y C o u n c i l a l e rt e d M o d d e r k i i p t o th e ^unla wfu l occupa t ion o f i t s land an d gave i t not ic e in t erms of s 6(4 ) of theP r e v e n t i o n o f I l l e g a l E v i c t i o n f r o m a n d U n l a w f u l O c c u p a t i o n o f L a n dA c t 1 9 o f 1 9 9 8 ( t h e A c t ) , 7 requ ir ing i t ro inst i tu te ev ic t io n p roce ed in gsa g a i n s t t h e u n l a w f u l o c c u p i e r s . M o d d e r k i i p r e f u s e d t o d o s o a n dinfo rm ed the City Co unc i l that i t cons idere d i t to be the Cou nc i l ' s Eresponsib i l i ty to ev ic t the occup iers . Modderk i ip s tated , however , that i twould co-operate with the Counc i l to the extent necessary shou ld i t cakesteps to cv ic t the occup iers Th e Cou nc i l d id no t respo nd to th isc o m m u n i c a t i o n , n o r d i d i t u k e a n y s t e p s a s s u g g e s t e d b y M o d d e r k i i p .(5j Modderk i ip then la id charges of t re spass against the occup iers . FT h o s e c o n v i c t e d w e r e g i v e n w a r n i n g s b y t h e c o u r t a n d r e l e a s e d . T h eunlawfu l occup iers , however , s imply went back to the farm af ter the ir

* Section 26 provides;' ( I ) Every one has the r ight to have access to adeq uate housin g. G(2) The State must take reasonable legisla tive and other measures, within itsavailable resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this r ight(3) No one may be ev ic tcd f ro m the i r hom e , o r have t iie ir home demol ished ,wi thout an orde r o f cour t ma de a f te r cons ide r ing a l l the r e levant c i r cum-stances. No legisla tion may permit arbitrary evictions. '5 Section 9(1) reads;'Everyone is equal before the law and has the r ight to equal protection and nbenefit of the law. '6 Sec t ion 9(2) p rov ides ;'Equa lity inclu des the full and equal enjo ym ent of a ll rights and freedomsTo promote the ach ievement o f equa l i ty , leg is la t ive and o the r measure sdes igned to pro tec t o r advance pe r sons , o r c a tegor ie s o f pe r sons , d isadvan-taged by unfa i r d isc r imina t ion may be taken . ' |7 Section 6(4) reads-.'Eviction at instance of organ of State(4) An organ of S ta te contempla te d in ss ( I ) may , be fore ins t i tu t ing suchproceedings, give not less than 14 days' written notice to the owner or personin charge of the land to institute proceedings for the eviction of the unlawfuloccupier.* J


8/27

1 0 PRESSOEMT OP THE RSA v MODDERKLIP 8QER0EFW (PTY) LTDIANG A ACJ 005 (5) SA 3 CCA re lease by the court and resum ed the ir occ upa t ion . The local head of d iep r i s o n t h e n r e q u e s t e d b o t h M o d d e r k l i p a n d r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o f t h e S o u t hAfr ican Pol icc Service ( the pol ice ) not to proceed with fur ther cr iminal

pro secu t ion s as the pr ison wo uld be hard-pr essed to f ind spac e toa c c o m m o d a t e c o n v i c t e d u n l a w f u l o c c u p i e r s s h o u l d t h e y t >e s e n t e n c e d t og pr ison terms.

[6] For i t s par t , Modd erk l i p cont inu ed to search for ways to reso lve d iep r o b l e m . I t s o u g h t a s s i s t a n c e f r o m s e v e r a l o r g a n s o f S t a t e , i n c l u d i n gt h e p o l i c e a n d o f f i c i a l s o f t h e E k u r h u l e n i M e t r o p o l i t a n M u n i c i p a l i t y ( t h em u n i c i p a l i t y ) i n t o w h i c h t h e B e n o n i C i t y C o u n c i l h a d b e c o m e s u b -C s u m e d . N o h e l p w a s f o r t h c o m i n g f r o m a n y o f t h e s e o r g a n s o f S t a t e .Modderk l ip a lso of fered to se l l to the munic ipal i ty the por t ion of thefarm that was un l awfu l ly occ up ied at a nego t iab l e pr ice of RIO 00 0 pe rhec tare . Although the munic ipal i ty in i t ia l ly showed some in terest in theof fer , not h in g cam e of i t . In the me ant im e , the num ber of un law fu lq o c c u p i e r s c o n t i n u e d t o g r o w . B y O c t o b e r 2 0 0 0 t h e r e w e r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y4 0 0 0 r e s i d e n t i a l u n it s , o c c u p i e d b y s o m e 1 8 0 0 0 p e r s o n s .P r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e J o h a n n e s b u r g H i g h C o u r t[7] In October 2000, s t i l l with in a per iod of s ix months of d ie in i t ia l^ occu pat io n of i t s proper ty , Mo dde rk l i p inst i tu ted procee d ing s in theJ o h a n n e s b u r g H i g h C o u r t 9 for an evic t ion order in t erms of d ie Act .T h e o c c u p i e r s a n d t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y w e r e c i t e d a s r e s p o n d e n t s a n d t h eo c c u p i e r s o p p o s e d d i e a p p l i c a t i o n . I n A p r i l 2 0 0 1 t h e H i g h C o u r tg r a n t e d d i e e v i c t i o n o r d e r a n d g a v e t h e o c c u p i e r s t w o m o n t h s w i t h i nw h i c h t o v a c a t e M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a r m . T h e C o u r t o r d e r a l s o a u t h o r i s e d

F the sher i f f to en l is t the ass is tan ce of the pol i ce in the ev ic t io n or remo valof the occup iers and the removal or demol i t ion of the ir in formald w e l l i n g s ,1 0[ 8 ] T h e o r d e r o f t h e J o h a n n e s b u r g H i g h C o u r t f o r d i e e v i c t i o n o f t h eo c c u p i e r s w a s n e v e r c o m p l i e d w i t h , n o r w a s a n a p p e a l l o d g e d a g a i n s t i tat that s tage . 1 1 I n s t e a d , t h e n u m b e r o f t h e o c c u p i e r s c o n t i n u e d t oi n c r e a s e . L a t e r e s t i m a t e s p u t t h e ir n u m b e r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 0 0 0 , o fwhom roughly a th ird were a l leged to be i l legal immigrants . These t t le men t has s tree t s and the erven are mo st ly f en ced and numb ere d . I th a s s h o p s a n d o t h e r m o d e s t c o m m e r c i a l v e n t u r e s . T h e r e i s o n e t a p f r o mH which the occup iers draw water and there are no other services except forp it to i le t s . The community , which is now fa ir ly se t t led and has a

8 Section 4(7) of the Act requires a court dealing with an eviction applicationins t i tu ted a f te r the expi r at ion of six months to have r ega rd , amon g o the r th ings ,I to the availability of alternative acco mm oda tion to the occupie rs. There is nosuch requirement where, as in this case, proceedings are instituted within sixmonths.9 Modderklip Boerdery (PiyS Ltd v Madder East Squaiisrs and Another 2001 (4)SA 385 (W) .Id a t 396 .' 1 A belated application for leave to appeal 18 months la ter was refused by theJ Suprem e Cou r t o f Ap pea l See above n 1 a t pa ra s (47J (49] .


9/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA w MODDERKUPS O E f t O E R YPTY) LTD \ 11LANGA ACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCvoluntary f orm of c iv ic s t ruc ture , ca l l s i t se l f the Ga bo n Inform al AS e t t l e m e n t , A b o u t 5 0 h e c t a r e s o f M o d d e r k l i p ' s p r o p e r t y o r e n o w u n d e ri l l e g a l o c c u p a t i o n , 2[ 9 ] P u r s u a n t t o t h e j u d g m e n t a n d o r d e r o f t h e J o h a n n e s b u r g H i g hC o u r t ; a w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n w a s i s s u e d a t M o d d e r k l i p ' s i n s t a n c e . T h esher i f f , how ever , ind ica ted that she wou ld have to eng age a secur i ty f irm ^to ass is t her in carrying out the ev ic t ions and there fore ins is ted on ad e p o s i t o f R l , 8 m i l l i o n t o s e c u r e t h e c o s t s o f th e e v i c t i o n s . 1 3 T h i samount far exceeds the value of the p iece of land which is i l legal lyo c c u p i e d , M o d d e r k i i p r e f u s e d t o p a y t h is a m o u n t . I t i n s t e a d a p p r o a c h e dthe Pres ident and the Min isters of Safe ty and Secur ity , of Agr icu lture Cand Land Af fa ir s , and of Housing, re spec t ive ly , for ass is tance , but to noavai l . On be ing requested to enforce the ev ic t ion order , d ie pol ice re fusedbec aus e they regarded d ie mat ter as a pr ivate c iv i l d ispute be tw een

v M o d d e r k i i p a n d t h e o c c u p i e r s . T h e y , h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t e d t h a r d i e y w o u l dbe prepared to s tand by when the ev ic t ions were ta i l ing p lace in order to qensur e that there- was n o breach of the peac e . F ind i ng i t se l f with ane v i c t i o n o r d e r t h a t i t c o u l d n o t e n f o r c e , M o d d e r k i i p t h e n a p p r o a c h e d t h ePre tor ia High Court for re l ie f .P r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e P r e t o r i a H i g h C o u r c

E1 1 0 ] T h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e P re t o ri a H i g hC o u r t ' 4 were d ie Pres ide nt of the Repu bl ic of So uth Afr ica , d ie Min istero f S a f e t y a n d S e c u r i t y , t h e M i n i s t e r o f H o u s i n g , t h e M i n i s t e r o fA g r i c u l t u r e a n d L a n d A f f a i r s , t h e N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n e r o f P o l i c e a n ddie sher i f f for the d is tr ic t of Benon i , M odde rk i ip later jo ined themun ic ipal i ty a s we l l as the occup iers , w ho w ere re ferred to in that case as Fthe Modder East Squat ters , as re spondents , but sought no re l ie f againsteither.[11} Although the re l ie f sought was wide -ranging, the e ssence of i t wasthat d ie S tate shou l d be ordered to enforce the ev ic t ion order . Mo dde r- _k l ip asked for a dec lara t ion d iat i t s s 2 5 ( 0 1 5 a nd its equa lity rights und er ns s 9 ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) , a s w e l l a s t h e ri gh ts o f t h e u n l a w f u l o c c u p i e r s t o a c c e s st o a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g ( s 2 6 ) , 1 7 had bee n v io lated . I t fur ther con ten ded thatthe S tate had fa i led to ensure the protec t ion of i t s proper ty r ights and wasaccord i ngly in breach of i t s ob l ig at ion s under s 7(2 ) of the Co nst i t u -t i o n . S I t fur ther sou ght an order com pe l l ing the S tate to remove the Hoccupiers f rom i t s proper ty . In the a l t ernat ive , Modderk i ip asked the

12 In the abor t ive negot ia t ions be tween Modde rk i ip and the Counc i l , a f igureof 140 hec ta re s was ment io ned . A t RIO 000 p e r hec ta re , the purchase pr icewould accord ing ly have been approxima te ly Rl ,4 mi l l ion . j, : >This amount la te r inc rea sed to R2,2 mi l l ion .Modderkiip Boerdery (Edna) Bpk v P)vud


10/27

1 2 PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MODDERKUP BOEROERY {PTY) LTDLANGA ACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCA Court to order the arrest and cr iminal prosecut ion of the occup iers for

the il legal occupa t ion a nd for con tem pt of Cou rt for the ir fa ilure toc o m p l y w i t h t h e e v i c t i o n o r d e r . 1 9[ 1 2 ] M o d d e r k l i p s o u g h t t o b o l s t e r i t s s u b m i s s i o n s o n t h e o b l i g a t i o n o fthe S tate to ensure d ie en forcement of d ie ev ic t ion order by invok ings 4 1 ( 1 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h s e t s o u t p r i n c i p l e s f o r c o - o p e r a t i v eg o v e r n m e n t a n d i n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l r e l a t i o n s ; 20 s 165(4) which requ iresorgans of S tate to ass is t and prot ec t the court s , 2 1 and s 20 5 , wh ich se t so u t t h e d u t i e s a n d f u n c t i o n s o f t h e p o l i c e . 2 2

C [ J 3 ] T h e a p p l i c a t i o n by M o d d e r k l i p w a s o p p o s e d b y t h e p o l i c e a n d b ythe Min ister of Agr icu lture and Lan d Af fa ir s w ho d id so on beha lf of d ieS t a t e . A g r i S A , a v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e e c o n o m i c , s o c i a l

D " A further claim by Modderklip that the conduct of the sheriff in demandinga deposit ofR1,8 million be declared unconstitutional, ultra vim or unreasona bleand therefore invalid was not pursued at the hearing and-nothing further need besaid about it.2 0 Sec t ion 41(1) r eads :'Principles of co-operative government and intergovernmental relationsp (1) All spheres of gove rnmen t and all organs of State within each sphere^ must(a) preserve the peac e, national unity and the indivisibility of the Rep ublic ;(b) secure the weH-bein s of the people of the Repu blic;(c) provide effective, transparent, accountable and coherent governme nt forthe Republic as a whole;(d) be loyal to the Constitut ion, the Republic and its peopl e,p (e) respect the constitutional status, institutions, power s and functions ofgovernment in the other spheres;(j) not assume any power or function except those conferred on them inte rms of the Cons t i tu t ion ,(g) exe rc ise the ir powers and pe r form the i r func t ions in a manne r tha t d oesnot encroach on the geographical, functional or institutional integrity ofgove rnment in anothe r sphe re ; andG (k) co-ope ra te wi th one anothe r in mutua l t rus t and good f a i th by(i) foster ing fr iendly re la tions;( ii) assisting and supporting one another;( i ii ) in formin g one anothe r o f , and consu l t ing one anothe r on , ma t te r s o fcommon in te re s t ;( iv) co-ordinating their actions and legisla tion with one another;. (v) adhe ring to agreed proce dure s; andr ' ( v i) avo id ing lega l p roceedings aga ins t one an ot he r '2 1 Sec t ion 165(4) o f the Cons t i tu t ion s ta te s tha t :'Organs of State , through legisla tive and other measures, must assist andpro tec t the cour ts to ensure the independence , impa r t ia l i ty , d ign i ty , a ccess i -bility snd effectiveness of the courts . '" Sec t ion 205 of the Cons t i tu t ion provides :1 ' ( I ) Th e na t iona l po l ice se rv ice mus t be s t ruc tured to func t ion in thena t iona l , p rov inc ia l and , whe re appropr ia te , loca l sphe re s of gove rnment .

(2) National legisla tion must establish the powers and functions of the policeservicc and must enable the police service to discharge its responsibilit ieseffectively, taking into account the requirements of the provinces.(3) The objects of the police service are to prevent, combat and investigatecrime, to maintain public order , to protect and secure the inhabitants of theJ Repu blic and their prope rty, and to upho ld and enforce the law. '


11/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MODDERKLIP BOEROERY (PTY) tTDLANG A ACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 1 3CCand safe ty in terest s of com merc ia l farmer s , obtained leave to subm it Ae v i d e n c e a n d t o p r e s e n t a r g u m e n t a s amicus curiae.{ 1 4 ] I n o p p o s i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e p o l i c e c o n t e n d e d t h a t th e p r o b l e mwas not a pol ice mat ter but one of land re form. They a lso poin ted to thee x p e n s e , e s t i m a t e d t o b e a t l e a s t R 1 8 m i l l i o n , w h i c h w o u l d b e i n c u r r e dif the ev ic t ion order were to be implemented . In h is af f idavit ar t icu lat ingt h e a t t i tu d e o f t h e p o l i c e t o t h e a p p l i c a ti o n . A s s i s t a n t C o m m i s s i o n e r V a nder Wcsthu izen put h is f inger on what became one of the central i ssuesof th is case . H e asked the que st io n where the occup i ers , with the irp o s s e s s i o n s , w o u l d b e a c c o m m o d a t e d a f t e r e v i c t i o n . H e p o i n t e d o u t t h a ti f the occup iers wer e s imply thrown o nto the s tree t , they wou ld e i therr e t u rn t o M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a r m o r o c c u p y s o m e o t h e r p r o p e r ty u n l a w f u l l y .T h e A s s i s ta n t C o m m i s s i o n e r a l s o q u e s t i o n e d t h e w i s d o m o f p r o s e c u t i n gthe occup iers because i t would not be poss ib le to ident i fy those whos h o u l d b e p r o s e c u t e d f o r c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t , o r t h o s e u p o n w h o m t h eevic t ion app l icat ion or the order had been served . Because of the ^c o n t i n u i n g i n f l u x o f u n l a w f u l o c c u p i e r s o n t o M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a r m , i twould a lso be d i f f icu l t to make a d is t inc t ion be tween the un lawfu loccu p ier s on the one ha nd and transient v is i tors on the od ier .{ 1 5 ] T h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d b y M o d d e r k l i p w a s , t o a s u b s t a n t i a l e x t e n t , granted by d ie Pre tor ia High C ourt . I t dec lar ed that Modd erk l ip 'sp r o p e r t y r i g h t s u n d e r s 2 5 ( 1 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n 2 3 had been v io lated bythe i l legal occupat ion and d ie fa i lure of the occup iers to comply with theevic t io n order I t a lso he ld that the S tate had breached i t s ob l iga t ions int e r m s o f s 2 6 ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , 2 1 r e a d w i t h s 2 5 ( 5 ) , " t o Ftake reasonable s t eps with in i t s avai lab le resources to real ise the r ight oft h e o c c u p i e r s t o h a v e a c c e s s t o a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g a n d l a n d . A c c o r d i n g t othe High Court , th is fa i lure by the S tate e f f ec t ive ly amounted to theun lawfu l expropr iat ion of Modderk l ip 's proper ty and a lso in fr ingedM o d d e r k l i p ' s r i gh ts t o e q u a l i t y u n d e r s 9 ( 1 ) a n d 9 ( 2 ) o f di e C o n s t i - ^t u t i o n b y r e q u i r i n g it t o b e a r t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i d i n g a c c o m m o d a t i o nto the occup ier s , 3 funct i on that shou ld have been und er taken by theState .[16] Th e Co urt he ld that the provis ion by the S tate of land ora c c o m m o d a t i o n t o t h e o c c u p i e r s w o u l d h a v e f a c i l i t a t e d c o m p l i a n c e w i t h Hthe ev ic t ion order . Accord ingly , i t he ld that d ie S tate 's fa i lure to provides u c h l a n d o r a c c o m m o d a t i o n a m o u n t e d t o a b r e a c h o f it s o b l i g a t i o n t oprote c t the e f f icacy of the ev ic t ion order as requ ired by s 165( 4) o f theCo ns t i t u t i on .^ I t fur ther he ld that the pol ice had l ikewise fa i led toc o m p l y w i t h t h e i r d u t y , i n t e r m s o f s 2 0 5 ( 3 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n 2 7 read |

" Above n 2Above n 42 5 Above n 22 6 Above n 21.27 Above n 22.


12/27

1 4 PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MODOERKUP BOERDER f (PTY) LTDLAMGA ACJ 2CS0S (5) SA 3 CCA with s 14 of the South African Pol ice Services Act 63 of 1995, 2 8 to

invest igate complaints by Modder ki ip wi th a v iew to the prosecution ofthe occupiers and protect ing Modderkl ip ' s property rights . Final ly , theCourt imposed a s tructural in terd ict requiring the State to present acomprehens ive p lan to the Court and to the other parties ind icat ing the

B s teps i t would take to implement the Court order. I t was against th i sjudgment and order of the Pretoria High Court that d ie State appl ied forleave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal .P ro ceed i n g s i n th e S u p reme Co u rt o f Ap p ea lC 117J In addi t ion to Agri SA, three other non-gover nme ntal organisat ionsact ive in the f ie lds of pol icy advocacy and support in respect of landlessa n d h o mel es s co mmu n i t i e s were a d mi t t ed b y th e S u p reme Co u rt o fAppeal as aurici curiae when the matter came before i t on appeal . Thesewere th e Nk u z i Dev e l o p men t As s o c i a t i o n , th e Co mmu n i ty L a w Cen treq of the Univers i ty of the Weste rn Cap e and the Program me for Land andAgrarian Studies , a l so of the Univers i ty of the Western Cape.{18] The S upre me C ourt of Appeal agreed in general wi th the f ind ingsof the Pretoria High Court , in part icu lar, that Modderkl ip ' s rights toproperty and the rights of the occupiers to have access to adequate

E housing had been infringed . I t i s these f ind ings that were chal lenged inth is Court . The Supreme Court of Appeal , however, d i sagreed wi th thePretoria High Court's finding that the police had failed to fulfi l diehobl igations to ensure that the evict ion order was executed ,

p [19} The judgm ent of the Sup rem e Court of Appeal was premised f irs t lyon i ts f ind ing that Modd erkl ip ' s rights entr enche d in s 25 (1) have be enbrcached by d ie unlawful occupation of Modderkl ip ' s property , as wel las by the refusal of the occupiers to obey the evict ion order. The secondleg to th i s was d ie Court' s endorsement of the f ind ing of the PretoriaHigh Court that d ie State had breached i ts ob l igat ion , under s 26(1) and(2) of the Consti tut ion , to provide the occupiers wi th land . Theprovis ion of la nd wou ld have enable d Modde rki ip to v indicate i ts s 25 (1)right , whi le at the same t ime enabl ing the occupiers to comply wid i theevict ion order. Th e Su prem e Court o f Appea l held that the State hasaccordingly fa i led to protect Mod derkl ip ' s rights , an ob l igat ion that f lows

^ from the provis ions of s 25 (1) read wi th s 7(2 ) of d ie Const i tut ion . 2 9 Ita l so held that the equal ity provis ions in terms of s 9(1 ) and (2) of d ieCo n s t i tu t i o n h a d b een i n fr i n g ed , ^

I" 6 Scci ion 14 provides.'Employment of Service in preservation of life, health or propertyThe National or Provincial Commissioner may employ members for servicein the preservation of life, health or property.'Above n 3J 3 0 Above nn 5 and 6


13/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA w MODDERKUP SOEftOERY (PTY) LTD \ 5LANGA ACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CC[ 2 0 } C i t i n g Fose v Minister of Safety and Security/1 and Af in i i ierof Health Aand Others v Treatment Action Campaign attd Others (No 2)?z theSu pre me C our t of App eal we nt on to S tate that the court s 'have a dutyto mould an order that wi l l provide e f fec t ive re l ie f to those af fec ted by ac o n s t i tu t i o n a l b r e a c h ' . I t p o i n t ed o u t th a t'cons titut ional rem edies will differ by circum stance . Th e only appro priate re lief Bthat, m the particular c ircumstances of the esse , would appear to be justif ied istha t o f "cons t i tu t iona l" damages , ie damages due to the breach or a cons t i tu -t iona l ly en t r enched r igh t . No o the r r em edy i s appa ren t . R e turn of the land i s no tfeasible . Th ere is in any event no indication that the land, which was being usedfor cultivating hay, was otherwise occupied by the lessees or inhabited by anyonee lse . Orde r ing the S ta te to pay damages to Modd e rk l ip ha s the advantage tha t Cthe Gabon occupie r s can r ema in whe re they a re whi le Modde rk l ip wi l l berecompensed for that which it has lost and the State has gained by not having toprovide alternative land. Tire State may, obviously, expropriate the land, inwhich event Modderklip will no longer suffer any loss and compensation will notbe payable (excep t for the past use of the land ) A declaratory orde r to this effectough t to do justice to the case. Mo dde rklip will not veccive mo re than what it has 0lost, the State has a lready received value for what it has to pay and the immediatesocial probl em is solved while the me diu m and long term prob lem s can be solvedas and when the State can afford it . ' 3 "( F o o t n o t e o m i t t e d . )[21] Th e re levant par t of the order of the Supre me C ourt of Appeal wa s Eaccord ingly in the fo l lowing terms:

(a) Th e appeal i s uph e ld in par t .(b ) Paragraphs 1 to 5 of the order of d ie Court b e low are se t as idea n d r e p l a c e d w i t h a n o r d e r

("0 Dec lar in g that the S tate , by fa i l ing to prov ide (and for Fo c c u p a t i o n b y th e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e G a b o n r n f o r m a l S e t t l e -men t , in fr inged the r ights of Mo dder k l ip Boe rdery (Pty) Ltd ,w h i c h a r e e n t r e n c h e d i n s s 7 ( 2 ) , 9 ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) , a n d 2 5 ( 1 ) , a n dalso the r ights of l ire res idents which are entrenched ins 2 6 ( 1 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n q( i i ) Dec l ar in g that the app l icant i s en t i t led to paym ent of dam -ages by the Department of Agr icu lture and Land Af fa ir s inrespec t of the land occup ied by the Gabon Informal Se t t le -m e n t .( i i i ) Dec lar ing that the res idents are ent i t led to occupy the landunt i l a l t ernat ive land has been made avai lab le to them by the HState or d ie provinc ia l or local author i ty .( iv) T he da ma ges are to be ca lcu lated in t erms of s 12(1) o f theE x p r o p r i a t i o n A c t 6 3 o f 1 9 7 5 .(v) I f , in re lat ion to the invest igat ion an d de term inat io n of thedam age s su f fered , d ie par t ie s are unab le to reach agreem ent jregard ing the p lead ings to be f i led ; , and d iscovery , inspec t ion ,

5 1 1997 O) SA 786 (CC ) (1997 (7) BC LR 851) a t pa ra (94) ." 2 0 0 2 (5) SA 721 (CC ) (2002 (10) BC LR 1033) a t pa ra [102] ,1 3 Above n i a t para [42}Ab ove n I at par a [43}.


14/27

1 6 PRESIDENT OF THE ASA v MODDERKLIP COcRDERY iPTV) LTDLANG AACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCA and other mat ters of proc edur e re lat ing there to , leave i s

granted to any of the par t ie s to make app l icat ion to the Courti n t e r m s o f R u l e 3 3 ( 5 ) f o r d i r e c t i o n s .

(c) The th ird appe l lant i s to pay the cost s of appeal of d ier e s p o n d e n t , 3 5

8 T h e S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n s i n t h i s C o u r t[22] In i t s app l ica t ion to th is Cou rt for leave to appeal aga inst the abo veorder , d ie S tate e ssent ia l ly advanced two bas ic content ions . I t f ir s tchal leng ed the f indings o f the Sup rem e Court of App eal that Mod der -k l ip 's right to proper ty un der s 25 (1 ) , and the occu p iers ' r ights to havea c c e s s t o a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g i n t e r m s o f s s 2 6 ( l ) a n d ( 2 ) h a d b e e nb r e a c h e d . T h e s e c o n d c o n t e n t i o n b y t h e S t a t e w a s t h a t M o d d e r k l i p w a snot en t i t led to the re l ie f i t c la imed because i t had neglec ted to app ly foran urgent ev ic t ion order t im eous ly , und er the provis io ns of s 5 of theA c t . 3 I t wa s argued that if the ev ic t ion proceed ings had been inst i tu ted

D d u r i n g M a y 2 0 0 0 , t h e e v i c t i o n s w o u l d h a v e b e e n m a n a g e a b l e a n daf fordab le I deal with the two cont ent i ons in turn .Th e r ights under ss 25 (1 ) and 26 (1 ) and (2) of the Co nst i tu t ion[23] Deal ing with the f ir s t content ion , the S tate argued that s 25(1) has

g app l icat ion to S tate cond uct on ly and not to the con du ct of pr ivatei n d i v i d u a l s . I t c o n t e n d e d t h a t M o d d e r k l i p ' s p r o p e r t y r i gh t s h a d b e e ninvaded by pr ivate ind iv iduals and not by any ac t ion of the S tate .A c c o r d i n g l y , i n t e r m s o f t h e S t a t e' s s u b m i s s i o n , s 2 5 ( 1 ) c o u l d n o t b e

p 3 5 Above n 1 a t pa ra \52}(b) an d (c),Section 5 reads;'Urgent p roceedings f a r ev ic t ion(1) Notwi ths tandin g the provis ions of s 4 , the owner or pe r son in cha rge ofland may ins t i tu te u rgent p roceedings for the ev ict ion of an un lawful occupie rof thai land pending the outcome of proceedings for a f inal order , and the courtmiiy grant such an order if k is satisf ied thatG (a) ther e is a real and im min ent da nger of substa ntia l injury or dam age to anyperson or property if the unlawful occupier is not for thwith evicted fromthe land;(b) the likely hardsh ip to the owne r or any oth er affected person if an orde r foreviction is not granted, exceeds the likely hardship to the unlawfuloccupier against whom the order is sought, if an order for eviction isi , g r an ted ; and" (c) there is no other effective rem edy available .(2) Before the hearing of the proceedings contemplated in ss (1) , the courtmu st give written and effective notice of the intenti on of the owne r or personin charge to obtain an order for eviction of the unlawful occupier to theunlawful occupier and the municipality in whose area of jur isdiction the landis situated.I (3 ) Th e no t ice of p roceedings contemp la ted in ss (2 ) mu st(a) sta te that proce edin gs will be institu ted in terms of ss (1) for an order forthe ev ic t ion of the un lawful occupic r ,(b) indicate on what date and at what time the cou rt will hea r the pro ceed-ings,(c) set out die ground's for the proposed evic tion, and(d) State that the unlaw ful occu pier is entitled to appe ar before the court an dJ defend the case and , where necessary, has the r ight to apply for legal a id '


15/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA w MODDERKUP SO EftOERY (PTY) LTD \ 1 7LANGA ACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCi n v o k e d a s t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e u n l a w f u l o c c u p i e r s w a s n o t o n e t h a t w a s Ac o n t e m p l a t e d b y t h a t p r o v i s i o n o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h i s r a i s e d t h eque st io n of wh ed ie r or not s 25 (1 ) has hor izontal app l ic at ion , that i s ,whether i t can be invoked to govern re lat ions be tween pr ivate par t ie s .[24] The r ights af fec ted were charac ter ised by the S tate as pr ivate - lawr ights for which pr ivate - and publ ic - law remedies were provided by d ieState . In th is , the execut ive 's in terest cou ld on ly be ind irec t and general .I t wa s argued that in ev ic t io n procee d ing s and in subs equ ent s teps toenforce ev ic t ion Orders , th is ob l igat ion or in terest was l imited to d ieprovis ion by the S tare of an in frastruc ture to 'o i l the s tatu tory mach in-e r y ' 3 7 in order to fac i l i tate the execut i on of court orders . Th e leg is lat ive ^f r a m e w o r k , w h i c h i n c l u d e s s s 4 a n d 5 o f t h e A c t , t o g e t h e r w i t h m e c h a n -isms such as d ie court s , woul d be par t of th is in frastruc ture T he S tates u b m i t t e d t h a t o n c e s u c h a s t a tu t o r y f r a m e w o r k h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e dand p laced at the d isposal of par t ie s des irous of engaging the mechan-isms, i t i s no t for the execut iv e , but for inst i tu t io ns such as the court s , to Do p e r a t e t h e m a c h i n e r y .[25 ] L inked to the f inding of the Sup rem e Cour t of Appea l d iatModderk l ip 's r ights to proper ty had been in fr inged was the conc lus ionreached by the Court that the r ights of the occup iers to access to ^a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g u n d e r s s 2 6 ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) h a v e b e e n b r e a c h e d . T h i sf ind ing by the Sup rem e Cou rt of App eal was based on i t s acccp tance thatt h e c o n t i n u e d u n l a w f u l o c c u p a t i o n o f M o d d e r k l i p ' s p r o p e r t y , e v e n a f t e ran evic t ion order had been issued , occurred becausc the occup iers hadnow here e lse to go . Th e Cou rt he ld , in e f f ec t , d iat d ie S tate cou l d have ^e n d e d t h i s o c c u p a t i o n b y p u r c h a s i n g t h e p o r t i o n o f M o d d e r k l i p ' sproper ty thai was un lawfu l ly occup ied , or by provid ing the occup ierswith a l t ernat ive land on which to se t t le . The Court accord ingly he ld thatthe fa i lure by d ie S tate to provide ass is tance to the occup iers in th isma nne r amo unt ed to a breach of d ieir r ights under s 26 (1) and (2 ) . I t ^he ld that th is f ind ing ' leads ine luc tab ly to d ie conc l us io n that the S tate ^s i m u l t a n e o u s l y b r e a c h e d i t s s 2 5 ( 1 ) o b l i g a t i o n s t o w a r d s M o d d e r k i i p ' 3 S[26] Fo r purposes of th is judg men t , and for the reasons d iat wi ll eme rgeb e l o w , I consider i t unnecessary in th is case to reach any conc lus ions (a)on the quest ion whether or not s 25(1) has hor izontal app l icat ion and , i fs o , u n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; a n d (b) w h e t h e r M o d d e r k l i p ' s s 2 5 ( 1 )r ight to proper ty and the r ights of d ie un lawfu l occup iers under s 26 (1)and (2) have been breached and , i f so , to what extent . I t wi l l beconven ient , however , to deal at th is s tage with the second content iona d v a n c e d b y t h e S t a t e i n t h i s C o u r t . 3 9 I

37 Di Lange ti Sonus NO and Others779) a t para (116]yA Above n 1 a t para {281, 9 See para [22] of this judgment(3) SA 785 (CC) (1998 (7) BCLR

J


16/27

18 PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MODDERKLIP BQEROcRY (PTY) LTDI.ANGA ACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCA T h e S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t M o d d c r k i i p w a s t o b l a m e

[27] The content ion that Modderk l ip was not en t i t led to the re l ie f i tc la ime d becaus e it had negl ec ted to inst i tu te ev ic t ion proc eed in gs u nderthe urgent provis ions of s 5 of the Act" 10 a s s u m e s t ha t M o d d e r k l i p w o u l dp r o b a b l y h a v e s u c c e e d e d h a d i t i n s t i t u t e d s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s . I t w a sB argued that Mo dde rk l i p broug ht i t s wo es upon i t se l f by not tak inge f fec t ive s teps to protec t i t s ow n proper ty , wh en ir cou ld have don e so .The S tate contended that there was no evidence at that t ime that d ieo c c u p i e r s c o u l d n o t b e a c c o m m o d a t e d e l s e w h e r e .[28] In t erms of the provis ion s re ferred to , the owne r or person in chargeC of land may, when cer ta in fac tors which are spec i f ied in the sec t ion arep r e s e n t / 1 1 inst i tu te proceed ings for the ev ic t ion of an un lawfu l occup ierp e n d i n g t h e o u t c o m e o f p r o c e e d i n g s f o r a f i na l o r d er . T h e S t a t e ,qu ite correc t ly , accepted that Modderkhp's de lay in seek ing to asser t i t sr ights w ou ld be mater ia l on ly i f i t were fo und to be cu lpa b le andq unreasonable . '1*{29} Th ere i s no doubt , as was he ld by th is Cou rt in Mkontzmna v NehonMandela M etropolitan Mun icipality and Another/' thai ow ners of proper tybear the pr imary responsib i l i ty to take reasonable s t eps to protec t the irproper ty . Th e comp lain t in that case was that a provis ion which providedE f o r d ie p a y m e n t o f a r r ea r c o n s u m p t i o n c h a r g e s b y t h e o w n e r o f p r o p e r t ybefore the t ransfer of such proper ty cou ld be e f fec ted , imposed on unfairburden upon an owner wish ing to e f f ec t t ransfer of proper ty . Yacoob J ,wr it ing for the major i ty , s tared:'It is nevertheless the duty of the owner to safeguard the property, to takeP reasonable steps to ensure that it is not unlawfully occup ied and , if it is, to takereasonable steps to ensure the eviction of the occupier. If the owner performsthese duties diligently, unlawful occupiers will not, in the ordinary course,remain on the property for a long period. It is ordinarily not the municipality butthe owner who has the power to take steps to resolve a problem arising out of theunlawful occupation of her property." 1q | 3 0 j T h e r e a r e , h o w e v e r , t w o a n s w e r s t o t h e S t a t e ' s c o n t e n t i o n s i n t h i srespec t . Th e f ir s t i s that , as the Sup rem e Co urt of Appeal fo und , it wasby no mean s c lear that Modd erk l i p wou ld hav e been ab le to sat is fy a l l the

4 0 Above n 36p. ' 1 The factors required to be present a ie that the court must f irstly be satisf ied" that there is a 'real and immi nen t dange r of subs tantia l injury or dam age to anype r son or p rope r ty 1 if the occupiers were not evicted immediately from the land(s 5 1)(*)); seco nd, tha t the likely hard ship to the own er or any othe r personaffected by the eviction order exceeds the likely hardship to the unlawful occupier(S 5( l ) ( iy ) ; and th i rd , tha t the re i s no o th e r e f f ec t ive r emedy o die r than the orde runder the provisions of s 5 (s 5(\)(c)).| 12 Abov e n 1 at para [32] .43 Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another Bissetiand O thers v Buffalo Ctty Municipality and Others; Transfer Rights Action Campaignand Others v MEC t Local Government, and Housing, Gattteng, and Others (Kwa-Zidu-Natal Lmu Society and Msursdttzi Municipality as Amict Curiae ,) 2005 ( ) SA530 (CC) (2005 (2) BCLR 150) .44 Id a t para [59] in respect of s 118(1) of the Local Government- MunicipalJ System s Act 32 of 200 0.


17/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MOODERKUP BOERDERY (PTV) LTD 1 9LANGA ACJ 2005 5) SA 3 CCstr ingent requ irements of s 5 of the Act 4 5 i f i t had invo ked those urg ent Ap r o c e d u r e s . M o d d e r k l i p ' s c a s e f o r e v i c ti o n w a s n o t b a s e d o n a n y o f t h o s efac tors but s imply on the fac t that i t had been depr ived of the enjoymentof i t s r ight of ownersh ip of the land in quest ion .[31] The second answer is that Modderk l ip had not been id le nor d id i tneg lec t to asser t i ts r ights of ow nersh ip f rom the outse t . I t had 8i m m e d i a t e l y e n g a g e d t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y a n d t h e o t h e r o r g a n s o f S t a t e i nsearch of a hu ma ne way out of the imp asse . Th e mun ic ipal i ty , for it spar t , re fased to involve i t se l f or to co-operate with Modderk l ip in thes e a r c h fo r s o l u t i o n s . T h e c o n d u c t o f t h e S t a t e t h r o u g h o u t w a s c o n s i s t e n twith the v iew ar t icu lated on i t s behalf in th is Court that the responsib i l i ty qf o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f d i e e v i c t i o n s r e s t e d so l e l y o n M o d d e r k l i p .[32] I t i s to be noted that the provis ions of d ie Act envisage theinvolvement of the S tate , in cer ta in c ircumstances , in ev ic t ions f rompr ivate ly owned proper ty . Sec t ion 4 requ ires that the munic ipal i ty bein formed of any ac t ion for ev ic t ion be ing unde itaken by a proper ty Qowner . Sec t ion 6(1) of the Act provides for the inst i tu t ion of ev ic t ionp r o c e e d i n g s b y a m u n i c i p a l i t y a g a i n s t a n u n l a w f u l o c c u p i e r f r o m p r i -vate ly own ed land which fa l l s with in the jur isd ic t ion of such mun ic ipa l-i ty , Be fore inst i tu t ing such proceed ings , the munic ipal i ty may g ive not icerequ ir ing the owner or person in charge of such proper ly to inst i tu tee v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s .1 16 In th is case , when M odd erk l i p dec l ined to br ing ^e v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s p u r s u a n t t o t h e n o t i c e / 7 the mun ic ipal i ty co u ldit se l f have inst i tu ted evic t ion proceed ings against the occup iers ."" This i td i d n o t d o . A s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r i n t i n s j u d g m e n t , 1 ,9 fur ther at tem pts byModderk l ip to ge t ass is tance f rom var ious organs of S tate fa i led to bearfru it and the judg men t and evic t ion order granted by the Joha nnesb urg FH i g h C o u r t b r o u g h t n o r e l i e f t o M o d d e r k l i p b e c a u s e o f t h e c i r c u m -stanc es which I have a lready descr ib ed .[33] The fa i lure by the S tate to take the s teps needed to resolve thep r o b l e m m u s t b e s e e n a g a i n s t t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f i ts c o n d u c t d t r o u g h o u t ,f rom the t ime when the or ig inal group of occup iers was ev ic ted by the GB e n o n i C i t y C o u n c i l f r o m t h e C h r i s H a n i s e t t l e m e n t . T h e c o n s i d e r -at ions that in f luenced the S tate are exp la ined in the af f idavit s at te sted tob y M r M a y e n d e , t h e D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l tu r eand Land Af fa ir s , Mr Chainee , the munic ipal i ty 's execut ive d irec tor ofhou sing , and Mr Oden daa l , the provinc ia l ch ie f d irec tor of hous ing. ^Br ie f ly s tated , the reason is that d ie S tate cou ld not be seen to ber e w a r d i n g ' q u e u e - j u m p i n g 1 to d ie pre jud ice of law-ab id ing c i t izens whopat ient ly await the ir turn to benef i t f rom housing and law re formp r o g r a m m e s , i n t h e w o r d s o f M r C h a i n e e :

4 5 Above n 36.* b Section 6(4) of the Act.17 Sec para (4J of this judgment.Sec t ion 6(3 } ( c )of the Ac t provides that one of the factors to be c onsidere dby the court when proceedings arc instituted by the municipality is theavailability of a lternative accommodation or land.4 9 See para (6) of this judgment.


18/27

2 0 PRESIDENT OP THE RSA v MODDER KLIP BOERDERY (PTY) LTDLANGA ACJ 200S (5) SA 3 CCA 'Should the v iew be spawned tha t un lawful occupa t ion s a rc compe nsa ted wi ththe expedited allocation of land and housing, the entire programme of landre form and hous ing would co l lapse . '

[34] In s imi lar ve in , M r Oden daa l speaks of the need to take in toa c c o u n t t h e ' e x i s t i n g p r i o r i t i e s a n d o b l i g a t i o n t o a c c o m m o d a t e p e o p l eg accor d ing to the ir rank ing on the wait ing l i s t ' and decr ie s the prac t ice of' q u e u e - j u m p i n g * .[ 3 5 ] T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f A p p e a l , h o w e v e r , e x p r e s s e d d o u b t w h e t h e rthe conce rn wa s just i f ied on the fac t s of th is case . I t fou nd no th ing toind icate that d ie occup iers ac ted with an in tent ion to leapfrog others inq the queu e , buc rather that the occ upa t ion to ok p lace becaus e theo c c u p i e r s , w h o m i s t a k e n l y b e l i e v e d t h a t d i e l a n d w a s u n o c c u p i e dmunic ipal proper ty , had nowhere e lse to go fo l lowing the ir ev ic t ion byt h e B e n o n i C i t y C o u n c i l f r o m t h e C h r i s H a n i s e t t l e m e n t .[36 ] Th e prob lem of hom cies sne ss i s par t icu lar ly acute in our soc ie ty . I tq i s a d i r e c t c o n s e q u e n c e o f a p a r t h e i d u r b a n p l a n n i n g w h i c h s o u g h t t oe x c l u d e A f r i c a n p e o p l e f r o m u r b a n a r e a s , a n d e n f o r c e d t h i s v i s i o nt h r o u g h p o l i c i e s r e g u l a t i n g a c c e s s t o l a n d a n d h o u s i n g w h i c h m e a n t d i a tfar too l i t t le land and too f ew ho use s were suppl ied to Afr ican peo p le .T he pain fu l con seq uen ces of these pol ic i e s are s t i l l with us U years in too u r n e w d e m o c r a c y , d e s p i t e g o v e r n m e n t ' s a t t e m p t s t o r e m e d y t h e m .E Th e frustration an d he lp le ssn ess su f fered by man y wh o sti l l s t ruggleagainst heavy odds to meet d ie chal lenge mere ly to survive and to haves h e l t e r c a n n e v e r b e u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . T h e f a c t d i a t p o v e r ty a n d h o m e -le ssncss s t i l l p lague many South Afr icans i s a pain fu l reminder of thecha sm that st i l l nee ds co be br idged be fore the const i tu t io nal ideal to

p e stab l ish a soc ie t y based on soc ia l just ice and impr oved qual i ty of l i f e foral l c i t izens i s fu l ly ach ieved . 5 0[37] Th e Sup rem e Cour t of App eal fur ther acce pted that af ter the irevic t ion was ordered by the court , the occup icrs be l ieved that negot ia-t ions were tak ing p lace that would have enab led them to remain on

q M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a rm . T h e s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s w o u l dh a v e m e a n t t h a t t h e u n l a w f u l o c c u p a t i o n w o u l d h a v e e n d e d b e c a u s e t h eoccupiers would have had a p lace on which to se t t le lawfu l ly .[38] I agree with d ie f ind ing o f the Sup rem e Court of Appeal d iatM o d d e r k i i p c a n n o t b e b l a m e d f o r a n y d e l a y in i n s t it u t i n g e v i c t i o nproc eed in gs and for the fa ilure ro con su mm ate th e ev ic t i on order, As" a lready me nt i on ed , the cost s of the ev ic t io n order i f imp lem ente d by thesher i f f far exc eed d ie pr ice at wh ich d ie land was of fered for sa le . 5 5 1 agreealso that Modderk l ip 's conduct in i t s pursu it of an e f fec t ive so lu t ion hasb e e n p r u d e n t a n d r e a s o n a b l e i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . E v e n i f a d e la y o n t h epart of Modderk i ip were found to have occurred , i t cou ld not , on thej fac t s of th is case , be su f f ic ien t to deny Mo dder k i ip the re l ie f i t i s en t i t ledto . The content ions of the S tate in th is re spec t must accord ingly fa i l .

5 0 See the preamb le to the Cons t i tu t io n See a lso Govinimou of ihe Republic ofSouth Africa and Others v Crootkwm and Others2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) (2000 (11 )BCLR 1169) a t pa ra [2] .J 51 See para [9] of this judgment


19/27

21 PRESIDENT OF THE ASAvMODDERKLIP COcRDERY iPTV) LTDLANG AACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCTh e ru le of taw and d ie prov is ions of s 34 of the Con st i tu t ion A[ 3 9 } S e c t i o n (c) of the Const i tu t ion re fers to d ie ' ( s )upremacy of theConst i tu t ion and the ru le of law' as some of the values that aref o u n d a t i o n a l t o o u r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r d e r . 52 T h e first asp ect that f lowsfrom the ru le of law is the ob l igat ion of the S tate to provide the ncccssarym e c h a n i s m s f o r c i t i z en s t o r e s o l v e d i s p u t e s t h a i ar i se b e t w e e n t h e m , BTh is ob l ig at ion h as i t s corol lary in dse r ight or ent i t l eme nt of everyperso n to have access to court s or othe r inde pen dent fo rum s provided byt h e S t a t e f o r t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f s u c h d i s p u t e s . T h u s s 3 4 o f t h e C o n s t i -tu t ion provides as fo l lows:

'Everyone has the r ight to have any dispute that can be resolved by the Capplication of law decided in a fa ir public hearing before a court or , whereappropr ia te , ano the r independent and impa r t ia l t r ibuna l o r fo rum. '[40] In Chief Lesapo v North Ufot Agricultural Ban k and Another,53M o k g o i o J p o i n t e d t o s o m e o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t s 3 4 a n d t h e ru l e o flaw seek to avoid when she s tated that : q

'The r ight of access to court is indeed foundational to the stability of an orderlysoc ie ty . I t ensure s the peace fu l , r egula ted and ins t i tu t iona l i sed mechanisms toresolve disputes, widiout resorting to self-help. The r ight of access to court is abulwark against vigilant ' ism, and the chaos and anarchy which it causes.Construed in this context of the rule of law and the principle against self-help inparticular , access to court is indeed of cardinal impor tance As a result, very powe r fu l cons ide ra t ions would b e r equi r ed for i ts l imi ta t ion to be r ea sonable andjustifiable.*( F o o t n o t e o m i t t e d . )[ 4 3 ] T h e m c c h a o i s m s f o r t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f d i s p u t e s i n c l u d c t h e l e g i s l a-t ive f ram ewor k , as we l l as me cha nis ms an d inst i tu t ions such as the court s Par id an in frastruc ture created to fac i l i tate the execut ion of court orders .In th is case , the leg is lat ive f ramework inc ludes the provis ions of the Actwhich are d irec ted at ass is t ing both the landowner and the un lawfu loccup ier . In argument , the S tate has accepted the ex is tence of th isob l ig at ion , but c la im ed that i t had been fu l f i l led . G[42] I t i s obvious in th is case that on ly one par ty , the S tate , holds the Iceyt o t h e s o l u t i o n o f M o d d e r k l i p ' s p r o b l e m . T h e r e i s n o p o s s i b i li t y o f t h eorder of the Johannesburg High Court be ing carr ied out in the absenceof e f f ec t ive par t ic ipat ion by the S tate . Th e on ly quest ion is wh ethe r theState i s ob l iged to he lp in resolv ing the prob lem, m other words , whether hModderk l ip i s en t i t led to ar ty re l ie f f rom the S tate .[43] Th e ob l igat io n on the S ta te goe s fur ther than the mere provis ion ofthe mech an ism s and inst i tu t ions re ferred to above . I t i s a lso ob l iged totake reasonable s t eps , where poss ib le , to ensure that large - scale d isrup-

5 2 Sec t ion 1( c) reads:'T he Re publi c of Sou th Africa is one, sovereign, democ ratic State foundedon the following values'(c) Sup rem acy of the Const ituti on and the rule of law. '2000 (1) SA 409 (CC ) (1999 (12) BC LR 1420) a t pa ra (22) . J


20/27

2 2 PRESIDENT OF THE ASA v MOOOERKLiP BOEROGRV (PTY) LTDLANG AACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCA l ions in the soc ia l fabr ic do no t occ ur in the wa ke of the exec ut io n o fc o u r t o rd e r s , t h u s u n d e r m i n i n g t h e r ul e o f i a w T h e p r e c i s e n a tu r e o f t h eState 's ob l igat ion in any par t icu lar case and in respec t of any par t icu lar

r ight wi l l depend on what i s reasonable , regard be ing bad to the natureof the r ight or in terest that is at r isk , as we l l as on d ie c irc um stan ces ofg ea ch ca se .

( 4 4 ] T h e p o s i t i o n o f M o d d e r k l i p , a s a v i c t i m o f t h e u n l a w f u l o c c u p a t i o nof its prop erty on a ma ssi ve sc;?1e> is aggrav ated b y the failure to hav e theevic t ion order earned out . I t s e f for t s to extr icate i t se l f were f rustrated bythe ine f fec t iveness of the mechanisms provided by the S tate to reso lveC th is spec i f ic prob lem b ecau se of the sheer ma gnit ude of the invas io n ando c c u p a t i o n o f M o d d e r k J i p ' s p r o p e r ty . T h e j u d g m e n t i n t h e e v i c t i o n c a s ea n d t h e o r d e r g r a n te d b y d i e J o h a n n e s b u r g H i g h C o n n d i d n o t p r o v i d ea n a n s w e r . T h e e v i c t i o n o r d e r b e c a m e u n e n f o r c e a b l e b e c a u s e t h eo c c u p i e r s , i n i h e i r t h o u s a n d s , w o u l d h a v e h a d n o w h e r e t o g o w h e n t h eq o r d e r t o e v i ct t h e m w a s c a r r ie d o u t . T h e p r o b l e m w a s c o m p o u n d e d b ythe inord inate increase in the number of occup iers . Indeed , in thefounding af f idavit , i t i s s tated that Modderk l ip found i t se l f in a chcc fc -m a t e p o s i t i o n , h a v i n g f o l l o w e d t h e c o r r e c t l e g a l p r o c e d u r e s a n d h a v i n gobtained a court orde tv on ly to f ind chat the organs of S tate were e i therunwil l ing or unable to ass is t in en forc ing i t . [45] I t is unreaso nabl e for a pr ivate en t i ty such as Mod derk l ip to b ef o r c e d t o b e a r t h e b u r d e n w h i c h s h o u l d b e b o r n e b y t h e S t a t e , o fp r o v i d i n g t h e o c c u p i e r s w i t h a c c o m m o d a t i o n . L a n d i n v a s i o n s o f t h i sscale are a mat ter that threatens far more than the pr ivate r ights of as ingle proper ty owner . Because of the ir capac i ty to be soc ia l ly in f lam-matory, d iey have the potent ia l to have ser ious impl icat ions for s tab i l i tyand publ ic peace , Fai lure by the S tate to ac t in an appropr iate manner ind i e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d m e a n t h a t M o d d e r k l i p , a n d o t h e r s s i m i l a r l yp laced , cou ld not look upon the S tate and i t s organs to protec t themfrom invas ions of the ir proper ty . That would be a rec ipe for anarchy.Q [46] The execut ion of an evic t ion order does not ord inar i ly ra isep r o b l e m s w h i c h c a n n o t b e a c c o m m o d a t e d t h r o u g h t h e e x i s t i n g m e c h a -n i s m s . T h e y a l l o w f o r d i e e x e c u t i o n o f c o u r t o r d e r s s o t h a t c i t i z e n s h a v eno just i f icat ion lo take d ie law in to the ir own hands . Consequent ly , orderin soc ie ty i s preser ved and inapp ropr iate soc ie ta l d i srupt i ons are pre -

M vented . I t fo l lows that court orders must be executed in a manner thatpreve nts soc ia l upheaval . Oth erw ise the purp ose of d ie ru le of law w oul dbe subver ted by the very execut ion process that ought to uphold i t .(47] The c ircumstances of th is case are extraord inary in that i t i s notp o s s i b l e t o r e ly o n m e c h a n i s m s n o r m a l l y e m p l o y e d t o e x e c u t e e v i c t i o norders . Th i s shou ld ha ve been obvi ous to the S tate . I t wa s not a case ofone or two or even ten evic t ions where a rout ine ev ic t ion order wouldhave su f f iced . T o exe cute th is par t icu lar cou rt order and evic t t ens o ft h o u s a n d s o f p e o p l e w i t h n o w h e r e t o g o w o u l d c a u s e u n i m a g i n a b l esoc ia l chaos and misery and untold d isrupt ion . In the c ircumstances of

J th is case , i t wo u ld a lso not be con sis te nt with the ru le of law.


21/27

PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v UOODERKUP EOERDERY (PTV) LTD 2 3LANG AACJ 2005 (5} SA 3 CC[ 4 8 ] T h e q u e s t i o n d i a t n e e d s t o b e a n s w e r e d i s w h e d i e r t h e S t a t e w a s , i n Athe c ircum stanc es , ob l iged to do mor e d ian i t has don e to sat is fy therequ irements of the ru le of law and fu l f i l the s 34 r ights of Modderk i ip .I f ind that i t wa s unreaso nable of the S tate to s tand by and do noth ingi n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e r e i t w a s i m p o s s i b l e f o r M o d d e r k i i p t o e v i c t d i eo c c u p i e r s b e c a u s e o f t h e s h e e r m a g n i t u d e o f d i e i n v a s i o n a n d t h e Bpart icu lar c ircum stanc es of the occup iers .[49 ] The S tate i s und er an. ob l ig at ion prog ress ive ly to ensure acces s toho usi ng or land for the home less , 1 am m indfu l of the fac t that d iosec h a r g e d w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n o f h o u s i n g f a c e i m m e n s e p r o b l e m s . C o n -fronted by in tens e com pet i t ion for scarce resources f rom peop le forced ^to l ive in the b leakest of c ircu mst ance s , the s i tuat ion of local gove rnm entof f ic ia ls can never be easy . T he progress ive real isat ion of acces s toa d e q u a t e h o u s i n g , a s p r o m i s e d i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , r e q u i r e s c a r e f u lp l a n n i n g a n d f a ir p r o c e d u r e s m a d e k n o w n i n a d v a n c e t o t h o s e m o s taf fec ted . Order ly and pred ic tab le processes are v i ta l . Land invas ions 0sho u ld a lway s be d iscoura ged . A t the sam e t ime , for the requ is i t emeasures to operate in a reasonable manner , they must not be undulyh a m s t r u n g s o a s t o e x c l u d e a l l p o s s i b l e a d a p t a t i o n t o e v o l v i n g c i r c u m -stances . I f soc ia l real i ty fa i l s to confo rm to the best - la id p lans , reaso nablea n d a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e s m a y b e n e c es s a r y . S u c h r e s p o n s e s s h o u l d Eadv ance the in terest s at s take and no t be undu ly d isrupt ive towa rds otherp e r s o n s . I n d e e d , a n y p l a n n i n g w h i c h l e a v e s n o s c o p e w h a t s o e v e r f o rre lat ive ly marginal adjustments in the l ight of evolv ing real i ty , may of tennot be reasonable .

F[50] H o accep tab le reas on has been prof fered for the S tate 's fa i lure toa s s i s t M o d d e r k i i p . T h e u n d e r s t a n d a b l e d e s i r e t o d i s c o u r a g e ' q u e u e -jumping' does not exp la in or just i fy why Modderk i ip was le f t to carry theb u r d e n i m p o s e d o n i t t o p r o v i d e a c c o m m o d a t i o n t o s u c h a l a rg e n u m b e ro f o c c u p i e r s . N o r e a s o n s h a v e b e e n g i v e n w h y M o d d e r k l i p ' s o f f e r f o r t h eState to purch ase a por t io n of Mo dder k l ip ' s farm was not taken up and ^why no at tempt was made to ass is t Modderk i ip to extr icate i t se l f .[51 ] T he ob l igat io n rest ing on the S tate in t erms of $ 3 4 of theC o n s t i t u t i o n w a s , i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t o t a k e r e a s o n a b l e s t e p s t oensure that Modderk i ip was , in the f inal analys is , provided with e f fec t ivere l ie f . The S tate cou ld have expropr iated the proper ty in quest ion orp r o v i d e d o t h e r l a n d , a c o u r s e t ha t w o u l d h a v e r e l ie v e d M o d d e r k i i p f r o mc o n t i n u i n g t o b e a r d i e b u r d e n o f p r o v i d i n g t h e o c c u p i e r s w i t h a c c o m -m o d a t i o n . T h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o d o a n y t h i n g a n d a c c o r d i n g l y b r e a c h e dMo dderk l ip 's const i t u t iona l r ights to an e f fec t ive rem edy as requ ired by (the ru le of law 5 4 a n d e n t r e n c h e d i n s 3 4 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n .

V i Sec t ion I(c) of the Cons t i tu t ion , See above n J


22/27

2 4 PRESIDENT OF THE RSA v MOD DEfiKU P BQERDERY (PTY) tJOLANGA ACJ 2005 (5) SA 3 CCA Just i f icat ion

[ 5 2 ] S e c t i o n 36 of d ie Const i tu t ion is not app l icab le in th is case s ince nolaw of general app l icat io n has been invok ed in the l imitat ion of M od -derk l ip 's r ights8 Sec t io n 4(1 2) of d ie Act

h i an a l t ernat ive argument the second , th ird and four th antia argued thatthe Pre tor ia Hig h Cou rt shou ld have re l ied on s 4( 12 ) of the Act . T hepurpose of s 4(12) i s to create an opportun ity for the amel iorat ion of thec o n d i t i o n s , w h i c h c o u l d h a v e d r a st i c c o n s e q u e n c e s t o d i e e v i c t e e s , u n d e rC w hich evic t ion orders are imp lem ente d , in order to cake in to acc oun tc h a n g i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . T h e e v i c t i o n o r d e r i t s e l f h a s n o t b e e n a p p e a l e dagainst ; a l l the pan ics involved are not be fore us and , accord ingly , i two uld no t be appropr iate at th is s tage to invoke the provis io ns of $ 4(1 2) ,Appropr iate re l ie f[ 5 3 ] T h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f a n a w a r d f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n w a s c h a l l e n g e dby the S tate on several grounds . F ir st , the S tate contended that th is typeo f r el i e f w a s n o t f o r e s h a d o w e d i n M o d d e r k l i p ' s a p p l i c a t i o n . I t s ta t e d t h a id i i s o m i s s i o n p r e c l u d e d i t f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s f o r m o f o r d e r a n dplac in g eviden ce be fore d ie Co urt why i t ou gh t not to be granted . In i t sE j u d g m e n t , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f A p p e a l p o i n t s o u t t ha t t h i s o p t i o n w a sput to S tate counse l dur ing h is open ing argument and he ne i ther res is tedi t n o r d i d h e ' s u b m i t t h a t s u c h a n o r d e r w o u l d b e i n c o m p e t e n t o ru n f a i r ' . 5 5 I f the S tate wa s taken by surpr ise , i t i s not c lear to me w hy i tcou ld not have requested t ime to ge t instruc t ions to deal with an issue

p w h i c h , u n d o u b t e d l y , w a s t o h a v e i m p o r t a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r it . I a g r e ew i t h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f A p p e a l t h a t :' I f a constitutional breach is established, this Court is (as was the Court below)manda ted to gran t appropr ia te r e l ie f . A c la imant in such c i r cumstances shouldnot necessarily be bound to the formulation of the re lief or iginally sought or themanne r in which i t was pre sen ted or a rgued

[54] A number of fac tors that had to be taken in to account in thedete rmi nat i on o f appropr ia te re l ie f for purp oses o f th is case were l i s t edby counse l who argued on behalf of the second , th ird and four th amid.These are that :( a ) d i e o c c u p i e r s h a v e f o r m e d t h e m s e l v e s i n t o a s e t t l e d c o m m u n i t y a n db u i l t h o m e s f o r t h e m s e l v e s ;(b) t h e ir i n v e s t m e n t i n t o t h e i r o w n c o m m u n i t y o n M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a r mmust be we ighed against the f inanc ia l waste that the ir ev ic t ion

would represent ;(c) t h e c o s t o f a v o i d i n g s u c h a w a s t e w o u l d b e m i n i m a l ;

I5 5 Above n I a t para [44}.56 Id a t pa ra [18] . The Cour t r e f e r r ed to C,mwchitc v Minister of Safety andSecurity and Another (Ceitm for Applied Legal Studies Intervening) 2001 (4) SA 938( C C ) ( 2 0 0 1 ( 1 0 ) B C L R 9 9 5 ) ; a n d Batmatym v Bannaiyne (Commission forGender Equality, asAmic us Cur iae ; 20 03 (2) SA 363 (C C) (2 003 (2) BCLR 111)J in supp ort of this app roac h.


23/27

P R E S I D E N T O P T H S R S A v M O D D E R K L I P B O E f l O E R V ( F TY ) L T DL A N G A A C J 2 0 0 5 ( 5 ) S A 3

2 5CC(d) the S tate i s and has a lways been invol ved in mat te rs conc ern in g the Au n l a w f u l o c c u p a t i o n o f M o d d e r k l i p ' s f a r m ; t h e S t a t e g a v e n o t i c e t o

Mo dder k l ip , in t erms of s 6( 4) o f d ie Act , to inst i tu te ev ic t ionp r o c e e d i n g s a n d M o d d e r k l i p m a d e v a r i o u s r e q u e s t s f o r a s s i s t a n c efrom var ious org ans of S tate ; a nd

Documents

south African case law