Answer to Question #238155 in History for Mama

Question

1. In this case , the applicant ( Sandvliet Boerdery( Pty)Ltd ) argued that they did not have to allow the respondents access to the farm to bury their family members , because the extension of security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 ( ESTA ) required that the deceased should have resided on the property in question before their death . Supreme Court of Appeal ( SCA) rejected this argument . Do you think the court made the correct decision ? Provide a reason for your answer , and base your answer on your understanding of the Constitutional development of law of property , as discussed in the study guide . (2)

3 . In this case , the SCA ruled that the drafter of ESTA would not have intended to deprive the deceased of the right to be buried with her ancestors.Do you agree with the statement that the court adhered to the principle of transformative Constitutionalism ? Provide a reason for your answer . (2)

Answer 1

The supreme court made a correct rulling on the case. This is because the deceased had the right to be burried in the land so long as he was the legitimate owner of the property. Therefore, there is a sense in which it would be absolutely wrong for the court to uphold the applicant argument.