Mkangeli and Others v Joubert and Others (CCT 61/00) [2001] ZACC 15; 2001 (2) SA 1191 (CC); 2001 (4) BCLR 316 (6 March 2001)

Mkangeli and Others v Joubert and Others (CCT 61/00) [2001] ZACC 15; 2001 (2) SA 1191 (CC); 2001 (4) BCLR 316 (6 March 2001)

The Constitutional Court held that the application for leave to appeal directly to it should be refused. The High Court's finding that the Extension of Security of Tenure Act is unconstitutional was not the basis for the orders made, and such a finding, without a formal declaration of invalidity, has no force or effect under the Constitution. The complexity and variety of issues raised, including nuisance, standing, validity of the trust, and ownership of land, make this case inappropriate for direct appeal to the Constitutional Court. The proper procedure is for the Supreme Court of Appeal to consider the matter first. Should the constitutionality of the Act become relevant in future...

Citation
[2001] ZACC 15
Parties
Applicant: Katazile Mkangeli and Others; Respondent: Joshua Johannes Joubert; Respondent: Village Farm Administrators (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Jukskei Crocodile Catchment Area Forum; Respondent: The Dutch Reformed Church, Noordrand; Respondent: Nicolaas Lourens Janse van Rensburg; Respondent: Stanley Mahlalela N.O. and Others; Respondent: The Master of the High Court; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: The Northern Metropolitan Local Council of Greater Johannesburg; Respondent: 25 Other Persons, Other Than the Applicants, Resident on Portion 133 of the Farm Zandspruit, 191 Registration Division I.Q. of the Gauteng Province
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2001
Case Number
CCT 61/00
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused.
Judges
Chaskalson P, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Madlanga AJ, Somyalo AJ
Legal Topics
Direct Access to Constitutional Court, Eviction, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Constitutional Invalidity, Standing, Town Planning Scheme
Constitutional Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Direct Access to Constitutional Court Eviction Extension of Security of Tenure Act Constitutional Invalidity Standing +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katazile Mkangeli and Others

Applicant

Joshua Johannes Joubert

Respondent

Village Farm Administrators (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Jukskei Crocodile Catchment Area Forum

Respondent

The Dutch Reformed Church, Noordrand

Respondent

Nicolaas Lourens Janse van Rensburg

Respondent

Stanley Mahlalela N.O. and Others

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

The Northern Metropolitan Local Council of Greater Johannesburg

Respondent

25 Other Persons, Other Than the Applicants, Resident on Portion 133 of the Farm Zandspruit, 191 Registration Division I.Q. of the Gauteng Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court correctly found the Extension of Security of Tenure Act to be unconstitutional.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's orders regarding eviction and abatement of nuisance were appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the application for leave to appeal directly to it should be refused. The High Court's finding that the Extension of Security of Tenure Act is unconstitutional was not the basis for the orders made, and such a finding, without a formal declaration of invalidity, has no force or effect under the Constitution. The complexity and variety of issues raised, including nuisance, standing, validity of the trust, and ownership of land, make this case inappropriate for direct appeal to the Constitutional Court. The proper procedure is for the Supreme Court of Appeal to consider the matter first. Should the constitutionality of the Act become relevant in future...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal directly to this Court against the order made in this matter by the High Court is refused.