| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:14:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:14:23Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2011-08-15 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2011] ZACC 35 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2012 (2) SA 337 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2012 (4) BCLR 372 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3650 | |
| dc.title | Occupiers of Portion R25 of the Farm Mooiplaats 355JR v Golden Thread Limited and Others | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT25/11 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT25/11 | en |
| dc.contributor.judge | Yacoob J | |
| dc.date.judgment | 7 December 2011 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3650/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%2896.8%20Kb%29-17970.pdf?sequence=19&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Application for leave to appeal against order that the eviction of approximately 170 families from privately owned land was just and equitable in terms of section 4(6) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE). The Court found that there was a threat that a large number of people might be rendered homeless by the eviction. It held that even though, unlike section 4(7) of PIE, section 4(6) does not explicitly require a Court to investigate whether a municipality can reasonably make land available for people who might be evicted, section 4(6) does require courts to consider all the relevant circumstances in determining whether an eviction is just and equitable. It was impossible for the High Court to conclude here that the eviction was just and equitable without investigating this. The order was set aside and the matter was referred back to the High Court to consider the matter afresh. Judgment: Yacoob J (unanimous). | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the North Gauteng High Court: Golden Thread Limited v People who intend invading Portion R25 of the farm Mooiplaats 355JR Tshwane, Gauteng and Others, [2010] ZAGPPHC 262;Case No. 3492/2010, 2 March 2010, unreported. |