President of the Republic of South Africa v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

2004 (6) SA 40 (2004)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

President of the Republic of South Africa v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

South Africa Constitutional Court
2004 (6) SA 40 (2004)

Facts

Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (Modderklip) (plaintiff) operated a large farm next to Daveyton Township, near Johannesburg. Due to overcrowding, some people settled on a strip of land between Daveyton and the farm. The settled area grew, encroaching onto Modderklip’s property. The township initially evicted the settlers, but the settlers soon returned. The settlement continued to grow exponentially. Modderklip tried to get the city council to act, but the city council did little to alleviate the encroachment. Modderklip sought court intervention, leading to multiple arrests of settlers, but again, the settlers soon returned to the occupied land. Modderklip offered to sell the affected land to the municipality, but the municipality did not take steps to acquire the land. As the settlement grew, Modderklip filed an action in the Johannesburg High Court. The court directed the eviction of the settlers and authorized the sheriff and local police to remove the settlers from the property. However, the sheriff and police refused to act, given the now very large settlement, unless Modderklip paid a deposit far in excess of the value of Modderklip’s occupied land. Modderklip then sought relief in the highest levels of government, again to no avail. With the settlement having grown to over 40,000 people, Modderklip filed an action in the Pretoria High Court. Law enforcement defended their inaction in the high court, claiming the settlers had nowhere to move, and the ongoing influx of new settlers made determining who had violated the Johannesburg court’s previous orders of eviction challenging. The high court and, subsequently, the appellate court ruled in favor of Modderklip, finding violations of Modderklip’s property rights and the settlers’ rights to housing and land. The Supreme Court of Appeal ordered the government to compensate Modderklip, provided the settlers remained on Modderklip’s property. The government appealed to the constitutional court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Langa, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership