The following media summary is provided to assist in reporting this case and is not binding on [he Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.

This case concerns the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Magistrates Courts Act 32 of 1944 which deal with the sale in execution of property in order to satisfy a debt. It arises from the use of those sections to sell homes at well below their value in order to settle relatively small debts.

The matter started in Prince Albert, in the Little Karoo, where the home of Ms Maggie Jaftha was sold in execution for R5000 to meet a judgement for non-repayment of a loan of R250. plus interest and costs. The home had been built on the basis of a subsidy of R 15 000, A similarly-subsidised home owned by Ms Christina Van Rooyen was sold in execution for R1000 in respect of non-payment of a grocery debt of R198.

Various applications were made to the Cape High Court to protect the interest;, of Ms Jaftha and Ms Van Rooyen, who-are the appellants in this matter. Most of the matters were settled before the High Court heard the cases, which were joined together in the High Court. The only issue left unresolved was the constitutionality of the above provisions

The High Court held that the right to housing and ownership protected by the Constitution could not prevent eviction that was achieved in a fair manner. The only remedy the appellants could call upon was to resist eviction once they became unlawful occupiers. The court commended the attorney who had come to the aid of (he appellants and made adverse comments about the attorneys who had instituted the sales in execution

The appellants argue in this Court, that their rights to housing, property and dignity are violated by the provisions of execution. They claim that the courts should be given a discretion to prevent sales in execution of homes in these circumstances where the impact is disproportionate to the debt.

The appellants were beneficiaries of a state housing subsidy. They claim that sale in execution impacts particularly on people in their position since if a recipient of such a subsidy loses his or her home in a sale in execution, he or she may not receive such funding in the future. They contend that the purpose of the right to a home and not to be evicted should govern the interpretation of the provisions, which are unconstitutional to the extent that they allow for disproportionate application.