From the evidence that was adduced, it was found that, in determining the
constitutionality of section 7, the court was interpreting the Constitution.
Therefore, the claim by the appellant failed.
Further, the appellants argued that section 7 was a limitation to enjoyment of
rights in property enshrined in the Constitution, which claim, the court dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and judgment of the Constitutional Court
was upheld.