Show simple item record 2017-04-08T17:02:07Z 2017-04-08T17:02:07Z 2004-11-08 en
dc.identifier.citation [2004] ZACC 25
dc.identifier.citation 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2005 (1) BCLR 78 (CC)
dc.title Jaftha v Schoeman and Others; Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others en
dc.title.alternative CCT74/03 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT74/03 en 11 May 2004
dc.contributor.judge Mokgoro J 8 October 2004
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for leave to appeal against decision of Cape High Court. The appellants challenge provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 which provide for execution against the immovable property of judgment debtors, on the basis that the impugned sections constituted an unjustifiable limit on their right of access to adequate housing in s 26 of the Constitution. Mokgoro J, in a unanimous judgment, upheld the appeal against the decision of the High Court. Any measure which removes from people their pre-existing access to adequate housing limits the right to housing in the Constitution. The process of execution against immovable property is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows a person's home to be sold in execution in circumstances where it is unjustifiable. An appropriate remedy would be to provide judicial oversight of the execution process. Words read in to the Act.
dc.concourt.casehistory Appeal against the judgment of the Cape High Court in the related matters of Jaftha v Schoeman and Others Case No 8617/01 and Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others Case No 8618/01. The Cape High Court handed down a single judgment dealing with both applications, reported as Jaftha v Schoeman and Others; Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others 2003 (10) BCLR 1149 (C).

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


My Account