Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 12 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 The Applicant’s Failure To Cease To Occupy, Hold Or Use The Land Again, the evidence of the two State witnesses is that the applicant used the land before its acquisition in terms of s 16B of the Constitution and is occupying and running farming operations on the farm to date. It is quite clear from this evidence that the applicant has not ceased to occupy, hold or use the farm. Again, the evidence that the applicant is still in occupation of the farm is overwhelming. Is The Applicant In Occupation After The Expiry Of The Appropriate Period Referred To, Which In The Present Case Is Forty-Five Days After The Fixed Date, Being 4 February 2007? As I have stated, the applicant, according to the evidence of the two State witnesses, is still occupying and running farming operations on the farm to date. Forty-five days have since expired. The applicant should have vacated the farm forty-five days after the date of the acquisition of the farm. It was submitted that the applicant was permitted to complete his harvest and thus authorised to occupy the farm beyond the prescribed forty-five days, and thereafter the law does not prescribe the period to cease occupation beyond the extended period. The submission that a former occupier, who is permitted to stay on gazetted land for a period beyond the forty-five days prescribed by the Act to enable such occupier to complete harvesting, who overstays that permitted period does not contravene s 3 of the Act is puerile. It does not merit serious consideration. I shall revert to this submission when I deal with the issue of the definition of “lawful authority” later in this judgment.