Provide reasons to oppose Moseneke DCJ’s treatment of the constitutional property

Question

and deprivation issues in Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited v Member of the Executive
Council for Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Eastern Cape
2015 ZACC 23

Answer 1

1. Moseneke DCJ's approach in the case may have eroded the right to property by allowing the government to unjustly take possession of private property without fair compensation.

2. The judgment failed to adequately address the question of whether or not the government had a legitimate public interest in expropriating the land in question, which is a key consideration in determining whether or not an expropriation is constitutional.

3. The judgment may have created judicial precedent that could be used to justify land expropriation without compensation in cases where there is no clear public need for the expropriation.

4. The judgment failed to adequately consider the negative consequences that the expropriation would have had on the business and the local economy, thereby risking the potential for economic harm to entire communities.

5. The lack of proper compensation in the case could have set a precedent for future expropriations that could be taken as justifications for taking possession of property without fair compensation.