47 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 form of money by the State. There is obviously no taking of money from the employers by the State. The objective of the retrospective imposition of the financial obligation on employers who terminated employees’ contracts on notice to pay a minimum retrenchment package was not the taking of the employers’ money. There was a pre-determined liability by the employer to the employee whose contract was terminated for damages caused by the loss of employment as a result of termination on notice. Compulsory deprivation of property prohibited under s 71(3) of the Constitution would not be premised on a pre-determined liability for a debt owed by one person to another. It is clear from the provisions of s 71(3) of the Constitution that the right to property is protected against compulsory deprivation by the State. The mechanism by which the retrospective application of the financial obligation on the applicants on account of their having terminated employees’ contracts on notice during the relevant period is unlike an act of deprivation of the applicants of specific and identified property. It would be incongruous to call the effect of the retrospective application of the obligation to pay compensation to employees whose contracts were terminated on notice deprivation of property within the meaning of s 71(3) of the Constitution. The transitional provision gives retrospective effect to legislation that simply imposes an obligation on an employer, the content of which is payment of the minimum retrenchment package to the employee whose contract was terminated on notice as compensation for the loss of employment. The retrospective application of the obligation did not target a specific property