Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 5 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 1. That they knew the applicant as a farmer on the farm, the gazetted land, which was acquired in terms of s 16B of the Constitution. 2. That the applicant was running farming operations on the farm before and after the acquisition of the farm. 3. That at the expiry of the forty-five day period when the applicant was required, in terms of s 3 of the Act, to vacate the farm he had crops on the farm that had yet to be harvested. They gave him time within which to complete the harvesting and vacate the farm. 4. That at the end of the harvest the applicant did not vacate the farm and is continuing farming operations on the farm to date. 5. That the farm has since been allocated to another person in terms of an offer letter but because the applicant is refusing to vacate the farm the new owner in terms of the offer letter has not been able to take occupation of the farm. 6. That although the registered owner of the farm is one Merle Taylor-Freeme, the mother of the applicant, they have always dealt with the applicant in connection with the farm and that it is the applicant who is carrying out farming operations on the farm. The evidence of these witnesses is to a large extent corroborated by the correspondence attached to the defence outline, referred to above. It is significant to note that