Você está na página 1de 2

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd
and Others

CCT 15/10

Date of Hearing: 3 August 2010

MEDIA SUMMARY

The following media summary is provided to assist in reporting this case and is not binding
on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.

On 3 August 2010, the Constitutional Court will hear argument on whether the applicants in
this matter have been unconstitutionally deprived of their property in terms of section 25 of
the Constitution.

The applicants own approximately 525 hectares of land (property) within the Coega Industrial
Development Zone (“Coega IDZ”), which is a major governmental initiative that is linked to
the new deepwater port at Coega and a surrounding industrial area in the Eastern Cape. The
Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd (“first respondent”) has been authorised by the
Department of Trade and Industry to undertake development in the Coega IDZ, and does so in
terms of the Manufacturing Development Act 187 of 1993 and the Industrial Development
Zone Programme Regulations (as amended).

Despite attempts by the parties to negotiate the sale of the property, agreements could not be
reached on a selling price. The first respondent has made two prior attempts to expropriate
the property, but such attempts were set aside by the High Court in February 2005 and in
April 2007. In 2007 the applicants, having informed the respondents, proceeded to advertise
the property on the open market. In response, the first respondent placed a notice in the same
publication, informing potential buyers that there existed a possibility that the property would
be expropriated if they could not be acquired in another manner. It was against this
background that the applicants instituted proceedings in the High Court (South Eastern Cape
Local Division).

In November 2008, the High Court dismissed the case, finding that, although the applicants
had been deprived of their property, this did not entitle them to the relief that was sought. On
appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal also dismissed the case, finding that the applicants had
not suffered any substantial interference to the use and enjoyment of their property. This
matter now comes before the Constitutional Court by way of an application for leave to
appeal.

The applicants argue that the continued threats of expropriation and the conduct of the
respondents have caused them severe prejudice, and that they have been deprived of their
1
entitlement to the full use and enjoyment of their land. Accordingly, they seek an order
compelling any one of the respondents desirous of expropriating their property, to initiate a
lawful expropriation within a specified period. The respondents argue that the applicants have
suffered no unlawful deprivation of property and that the relief sought, allegedly purely
academic as there is neither an intention to expropriate the property nor an application for
expropriation before the Department of Public Works, would, if granted, breach the doctrine
of separation of powers.

Você também pode gostar