Summary Property Case Summaries Term 4: 6 Detailed Case Summaries for the Test (8 pages)

Property Case Summaries
For Test

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
ILLEGAL



Arbitrary deprivation of property

FNB v Commissioner for SARS; Minister

Facts:
- law permitted SARS to confiscate property owned by one party to settle a tax debt owed
by another party
- SARS confiscated motor vehicles that belonged to FNB to settle the tax debt of some of
the bank’s debtors
- it did not matter whether the property in question belonged to the customs debtor


Legal Question:
- Is the law that permitted SARS to confiscate property owned by one party to settle a tax
debt owed by another party constitutional?

Outcome:
- law found to be unconstitutional
- there is insufficient reason for the deprivation authorised by section 114. It is accordingly
unconstitutional, and the seizures pursuant to it are unlawful. (paras 108, 109, 132 and
133). There is no justification for section 114 to be found in section 36 of the
Constitution. (para 111).

- Expropriation is the most severe form of deprivation and is treated as a special
subcategory that requires the payment of compensation (para 59)
- clarifies the judicial understanding of the relationship between deprivation and
expropriation of property
- sufficient reason test:
- extent of deprivation
- purpose of deprivation
- nature of property