2Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corp (Pty) Ltd and Others 2009 (5) SA 661 (SE) (per Jansen J). 3 Above n 1 at para 2. 4 Section 25(1) of the Constitution states: “No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.”, 1 The judgment is reported as Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corp (Pty) Ltd 2009 (5) SA 661 (SE). 2 The precise nature and status of the shares of these two arms of government in the first respondent is the subject of some debate in the papers but in my view nothing turns on this.
The applicants, Offit Enterprises (Pty) Limited and Offit Farming Enterprises (Pty) Limited, were joint owners of a large expanse of land measuring 505 hectares within the Coega, Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 15/10) [2010] ZACC 20. On 18 November 2010, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in a.
11/18/2010 · The SCA confirmed the decision of the South Eastern Cape Local Division: Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corp (Pty) Ltd and Others 2009 (5) SA 661 (SE). Synopsis: Application for leave to appeal in which the applicants were owners of large properties located in the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) in the Eastern Cape Province.
Constitutional Court ( Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd 2011 1 SA 293 (CC)) directed the parties to address the following issues: whether the applicants were deprived of their property and if so, by whom, and what would the appropriate relief be:, present case. Offit ’s appeal was dismissed. Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v . Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others 2011 (1) SA 293 (CC).
In this context the court also approvingly quoted extensively from Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation (2010 4 SA 242 (SCA)), where the court inter alia found that: “it [cannot] be said in our modern conditions and having regard to the Constitution that an expropria- tion can never be for a public purpose merely because the ultimate owner of the land after expropriation will be a private …
