| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T16:56:49Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T16:56:49Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2004-11-30 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [1996] ZACC 22 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1996 (12) BCLR 1573 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1997 (2) SA 621 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2028 | |
| dc.title | Transvaal Agricultural Union v Minister of Land Affairs and Another | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT21/96 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT21/96 | en |
| dc.date.hearing | 19 September 1996 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Chaskalson P | |
| dc.date.judgment | 18 November 1996 | |
| dc.link.judgment | https://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2028/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2018%20November%201996.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Application for direct access in terms of rule 17 read with s100(2) of the Constitution. Applicant sought an order declaring various sections of the Restitution of Land Rights Act and two rules of procedure of the Land Claims Commission unconstitutional. Application for direct access refused (no exceptional circumstances) and applicant had approached Court prematurely. Applicant ordered to pay costs of abortive proceedings. | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for direct access to the Constitutional Court, direct access denied. |