| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:13:06Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:13:06Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2010-04-01 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2010] ZACC 20 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2011 (1) SA 293 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2011 (2) BCLR 189 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3606 | |
| dc.title | Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT15/10 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT15/10 | en |
| dc.contributor.judge | Skweyiya J | |
| dc.date.judgment | 18 November 2010 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3606/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28188%20Kb%29-16049.pdf?sequence=17&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Application for leave to appeal in which the applicants were owners of large properties located in the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) in the Eastern Cape Province. The IDZ was operated by the first respondent Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd (Coega) under license from the Minister for Trade and Industry. The central complaint was that Coega had made threats over a long period of time to expropriate the applicants' land. The intention of Coega to have the land expropriated was also inferred from past attempts at expropriation by the Premier of the Eastern Cape and past spoliations. These were appropriately remedied in other cases before the High Court. The applicants contended that these threats amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of property in terms of section 25(1) of the Constitution. The applicants sought an order in this Court compelling Coega to decide within a specified period whether to have the property expropriated. The Court held that these threats did not amount to a substantial interference that went beyond the normal restrictions on the use and enjoyment of property. The threats to expropriate were made by an entity which did not have the power to expropriate. Furthermore, the threats related to future conduct that may not take place. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Judgment: Skweyiya J (unanimous). | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal: Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation and Others 2010 (4) SA 242 (SCA). The SCA confirmed the decision of the South Eastern Cape Local Division: Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corp (Pty) Ltd and Others 2009 (5) SA 661 (SE). |