An eviction notice brought before the Constitutional Court last year provides a test case for safeguarding the rights of the vulnerable in society, says Simon Dippenaar, of Simon Dippenaar & Associates, in an analysis on the Fin24 site. In the original case in the High Court, the 184 occupiers were represented in court by four of their peers, who were referred to as the ‘appearer applicants’.

They consented to a draft eviction order, without the approval of the remaining 180 occupiers. While the High Court refused to rescind the eviction order, the Constitutional Court ruled in Occupiers of Erven 87 and 88 Berea v De Wet NO and Another that – where legal representatives consent to judgments without proper authority – the judgment is not valid.

Dippenaar notes that informed consent is a guiding principle of the Constitution. As a result, consent by the ‘appearer applicants’ was not binding on the rest of the occupiers. He says the Constitutional Court judgment could signal a new role for the courts in matters of eviction and reinforces the function of the courts in protecting the poor and vulnerable in society.

‘This case places an increased burden on the courts and property owners. Property owners are now required to ensure a legally valid and binding mandate exists before anyone representing property occupiers can enter into court-ordered agreements,’ says Dippenaar.

The ruling, he adds, has refined the Constitutional Court’s stance on active judicial management of eviction applications.

‘Whether this leads to fairer, more just outcomes for all parties – or simply brings the process to a grinding halt – remains to be seen.’

Full analysis on the Fin24 site

Occupiers of Erven 87 and 88 Berea v De Wet NO and Another