1887

n South African Journal on Human Rights - Fischer v Unlawful Occupiers : could the court have interpreted the ‘may’ in section 9(3)(a) of the Housing Act as a ‘must’ under the circumstances of the case? - original article

Volume 35 Number 4
  • ISSN : 0258-7203
  • E-ISSN: 1996-2126
This article is unavailable for purchase outside of Africa

 

Abstract

In 2017, in the case of Fischer v Unlawful Occupiers, the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, was faced with a legal conundrum. Before it was an application for the eviction of 60 000 desperately poor persons from a number of privately owned properties. Due to the size of the unlawful occupation, the landowners sought an order that the municipality purchase or, alternatively, expropriate their properties. Such expropriation is allowed by s 9(3)(a) of the Housing Act, which provides that a municipality ‘may’ expropriate land for housing purposes. This article considers whether the court, in Fischer, could have interpreted the ‘may’ in s 9(3)(a) as a ‘must’. This would have enabled it to order the municipality to exercise its powers in terms of s 9(3)(a) to attempt to secure purchase of the land and failing which to expropriate.

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/10520/EJC-1ceb9430f2
2020-12-01
2020-06-05

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error