Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 15/10) [2010] ZACC 20; 2011 (1) SA 293 (CC) ; 2011 (2) BCLR 189 (CC) (18 November 2010)

Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 15/10) [2010] ZACC 20; 2011 (1) SA 293 (CC) ; 2011 (2) BCLR 189 (CC) (18 November 2010)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants had not been deprived of their property as contemplated by section 25(1) of the Constitution. The conduct of the respondents, including threats of expropriation and unsuccessful negotiations, did not amount to substantial interference or limitation of the applicants' use and enjoyment of their land. The CDC had no power to expropriate and had not made any application to the Minister for Public Works for expropriation. The applicants remained free to sell, develop, or use their land, and there was no evidence of bad faith or abuse of power. The Court found that the applicants' complaints did not rise to the level of constitutional...

Citation
[2010] ZACC 20
Parties
Applicant: Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Offit Farming Enterprises (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Premier of the Eastern Cape Province; Respondent: Minister for Public Works; Respondent: Minister for Trade and Industry
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2010
Case Number
CCT 15/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Dismissal by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; applicants ordered to pay costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Skweyiya, Ngcobo, Moseneke, Brand, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Section 25 Property Clause, Expropriation Act, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Unlawful Deprivation, Mandamus, Operator Permit
Constitutional Law Land and Property Administrative Law Section 25 Property Clause Expropriation Act Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Unlawful Deprivation Mandamus +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Offit Farming Enterprises (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Premier of the Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

Minister for Public Works

Respondent

Minister for Trade and Industry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Dismissal by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have been deprived of their property in contravention of section 25 of the Constitution.
  2. 2 If so, by whom was the deprivation effected.
  3. 3 What relief, if any, are the applicants entitled to.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants had not been deprived of their property as contemplated by section 25(1) of the Constitution. The conduct of the respondents, including threats of expropriation and unsuccessful negotiations, did not amount to substantial interference or limitation of the applicants' use and enjoyment of their land. The CDC had no power to expropriate and had not made any application to the Minister for Public Works for expropriation. The applicants remained free to sell, develop, or use their land, and there was no evidence of bad faith or abuse of power. The Court found that the applicants' complaints did not rise to the level of constitutional...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; applicants ordered to pay costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is dismissed.