Conlaw Assignment Notes
DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
ILLEGAL
PIERRE DE VOS; WARREN FREEDMAN; ZSA-ZSA BOGGENPOEL. 2021. SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN CONTEXT SECOND EDITION. OXFORD:
OXFORD UNIV PRESS UK.
Harksen v Lane
Facts:
- Harksen said the way she was deprived of her estate was discriminatory.
- Married husband out of community of property
- Her husband’s estate had been sequestrated*
- Her property was sequestrated too
- She argued that her goods were taken away and she wasn’t compensated and that
that was unconstitutional
- Mrs Harksen found that the provisions of s 21(1) of the Insolvency Act constitute an
expropriation (the action of dispossessing someone of property)of the property of
the solvent spouse without any provision for compensation as required by s 28(3).
*Judicially ordered seizure of goods, as from a bankrupt party
Legal Question:
- Was there discrimination against Mrs Harksen (by taking away her property)? If
yes, was it fair or unfair?
Law:
Section 9(3) Grounds of discrimination
- namely race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour,
sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and
birth
- section 9(3) is not a closed list, other grounds that are not listed that are ‘analgous
grounds’
Judgement:
DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
ILLEGAL
PIERRE DE VOS; WARREN FREEDMAN; ZSA-ZSA BOGGENPOEL. 2021. SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN CONTEXT SECOND EDITION. OXFORD:
OXFORD UNIV PRESS UK.
Harksen v Lane
Facts:
- Harksen said the way she was deprived of her estate was discriminatory.
- Married husband out of community of property
- Her husband’s estate had been sequestrated*
- Her property was sequestrated too
- She argued that her goods were taken away and she wasn’t compensated and that
that was unconstitutional
- Mrs Harksen found that the provisions of s 21(1) of the Insolvency Act constitute an
expropriation (the action of dispossessing someone of property)of the property of
the solvent spouse without any provision for compensation as required by s 28(3).
*Judicially ordered seizure of goods, as from a bankrupt party
Legal Question:
- Was there discrimination against Mrs Harksen (by taking away her property)? If
yes, was it fair or unfair?
Law:
Section 9(3) Grounds of discrimination
- namely race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour,
sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and
birth
- section 9(3) is not a closed list, other grounds that are not listed that are ‘analgous
grounds’
Judgement:
