Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:17:01Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:17:01Z
dc.date.created 2013-11-11 en
dc.identifier.citation [2014] ZACC 17
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (4) SA 590 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (8) BCLR 971 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3740
dc.title Zulu and Others v Ethekweni Muncipality and Others (Abahlali Basemjondolo Movement as Amicus Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT108/13 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT108/13 en
dc.date.hearing 12 February 2014
dc.contributor.judge Zondo J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Van der Westhuizen J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Moseneke ACJ separate judgment
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3740/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28273%20Kb%29-22086.pdf?sequence=17&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Demolition of shacks — invasion of government land — locus standi — leave to intervene in proceedings where no interim demolition and eviction order granted — allegations of the party whose locus standi is challenged to be taken as true for determination of locus standi — appellants have locus standi to intervene in proceedings brought by MEC for demolition of their structures — demolition of someone’s structure — act of eviction itself — constitutionality of interim eviction order granted without compliance with Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 — not necessary for Court to decide constitutionality of such interim order when not on appeal and when there is another interim order protecting the appellants’ rights in the interim. An application for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court which denied the applicants an opportunity to intervene in the proceedings concerning the confirmation of an interim order of the High Court. The interim order authorised the respondent and others to prevent persons from occupying or erecting structures on the land and to demolish structures erected thereon. The applicants unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal. They then approached the Constitutional Court, which held that the applicants had a direct and substantial interest and granted them leave to intervene in the confirmatory proceedings. Main judgment: Zondo J (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, and Majiedt AJ concurring). Separate concurrences: Van der Westhuizen J (Froneman J concurring) and Moseneke ACJ (Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, and Majiedt AJ concurring).
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against an order made by the Durban High Court.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account