Provide reasons to oppose Moseneke DCJ’s treatment of the constitutional property
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
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.
In Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Eastern Cape 2015 ZACC 23, there are several reasons why one might oppose Moseneke DCJ's treatment of the constitutional property and deprivation issues. These reasons include:
1. Unclear interpretation of constitutional property rights: Moseneke DCJ's treatment of the constitutional property rights in this case may have led to an unclear interpretation of these rights. This lack of clarity can create confusion in future legal cases and undermine the consistency and predictability of the law.
2. Failure to adequately balance private and public interests: One may argue that Moseneke DCJ did not adequately consider and balance the interests of both private entities, like Shoprite Checkers, and the public. This failure to strike a fair balance could result in an imbalance of power, with private interests being prioritized over public interests.
3. Inconsistent application of constitutional principles: It is possible that Moseneke DCJ's treatment of constitutional property and deprivation issues in this case deviated from established constitutional principles or failed to apply them consistently. This inconsistency can undermine the rule of law and create uncertainty in future cases.
4. Lack of consideration for economic implications: Opponents may argue that Moseneke DCJ did not sufficiently consider the economic implications of his treatment of property and deprivation issues. Failing to take into account these implications could lead to negative consequences for businesses, investors, and the overall economy.
5. Failure to provide adequate justification for decisions: Critics might also assert that Moseneke DCJ did not provide sufficient reasoning or justification for his treatment of the constitutional property and deprivation issues. This lack of transparency can undermine confidence in the judiciary and the legitimacy of the decision-making process.
It is important to note that these reasons opposing Moseneke DCJ's treatment of the constitutional property and deprivation issues are subjective and open to interpretation. Different individuals may have varying perspectives on the matter.