![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg/640px-Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg&w=640&q=50)
Jaftha v Schoeman
South African legal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Jaftha v Schoeman?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others is an important case in South African civil procedure and property law, decided in the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 8 October 2004. The court held unanimously that the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1944 was unconstitutional insofar as it did not provide for judicial oversight over sales in execution against the immovable property of judgment debtors. In a judgment written by Justice Yvonne Mokgoro, the court found that sales in execution limited the debtor's constitutional right to housing and that the prevailing execution scheme was overbroad because it permitted such sales to proceed even in circumstances where they limited that right unjustifiably.
Jaftha v Schoeman | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
Full case name | Jaftha v Schoeman and Others; Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others |
Decided | 8 October 2004 (2004-10-08) |
Docket nos. | CCT 74/03 |
Citations | [2004] ZACC 25; 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC); 2005 (1) BCLR 78 (CC) |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Jaftha v Schoeman and Others [2003] ZAWCHC 26 in the High Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Moseneke J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Mokgoro J (unanimous) |