|
LawyersHumanRights
@
LHR_SA
South Africa
|
|
LHR is a South African human rights organisation with 39 years experience in human rights activism and public interest litigation.
|
|
|
5,907
ಟ್ವೀಟ್ಗಳು
|
1,848
ಹಿಂಬಾಲಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವವರು
|
13,252
ಹಿಂಬಾಲಕರು
|
| ಟ್ವೀಟ್ಗಳು |
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
6 ಗಂ. |
|
judgment is reserved
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
6 ಗಂ. |
|
Adv Brand provides clarity regarding the use and interpretation of section 54 of the MPRDA not only as a remedy for compensation but rather also as a dispute mechanism when surface rights holders and mining right holders do not agree
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
6 ಗಂ. |
|
Adv Brand is replying on behalf of the #wilgespruit community
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the court further asks why then did the respondents proceed with an eviction application instead of arbitration as per section 54(7)
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the respondents state that they have complied with section 54(1)
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the court further seeks clarity on whether it is the respondents argument that they have met all the requirements of section 54?
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the court has posed a question to the respondents on the clashing of rights of both the land/property owner and the mineral rights holder, what role does the constitution play in this regard as the land rights are protected by the constitution in section 25
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the respondents concede that section 54 is applicable in this matter by the fact that they gave notice
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the respondents state that the respondents have been on the property for years
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
court poses a question to the respondents whether section 54(1)(a) is applicable in the case brought by the #wilgespruit community
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the court has posed a question to the respondents on where their cause of action lies in seeking an eviction for the #wilgespruit community.
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the respondents now state that the principle remains the same
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the respondents now allege the surface rights holder, would have a limited real right on the property which can only be exercised if it is not in conflict with the mining holder rights. the court is posing further questions on this particular submission
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
in response the respondents states that the expropriation occurs at the granting of the mining right.
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
7 ಗಂ. |
|
the court is seeking clarity on whether it is the respondents contention that the granting of a mining right deprives the surface rights holder of their land use rights? #wilgespruit
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
8 ಗಂ. |
|
the interpretation by the respondents of the rights of the surface rights holder is that the granting of the mining right deprives the surface rights holder of any land rights,, the is vehemently disputed by the Applicant #wilgespuit
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
8 ಗಂ. |
|
the Respondent argues that no challenge to the mining right was ever raised by the community, this is was disputed in the court a quo. #wilgespruit
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
8 ಗಂ. |
|
The Respondents are addressing the court, they allege a number of consultations were held before the granting of the mining right, the #Wilgesrpuit community disputes this, it raises the question, what constitutes proper consultation in terms of the MPRDA
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
8 ಗಂ. |
|
#wilgespruit community elders in the constitutional court pic.twitter.com/gVSJNdhZ3w
|
||
|
|
||
|
LawyersHumanRights
@LHR_SA
|
8 ಗಂ. |
|
#wilgespruit community in attendance at the constitutional court pic.twitter.com/yX8CD88UB9
|
||
|
|
||