A court would approach the constitutionality of the Forest Act 84 of 1998 by conducting a legal review to determine if the act's limitations on property rights under section 25(1) of the Constitution are justifiable, considering the public interest, environmental protection, equitable compensation, and principles of justice.
In terms of the national Forest Act 84 of 1998 and its potential to contravene section 25(1) of the Constitution, which protects the right to property, a court would typically approach the constitutionality of the provision by conducting a legal review based on constitutional principles.
This legal review would consider whether restrictions or actions permitted by the Forest Act are aligned with the broader objectives of the Constitution, particularly the protection of property rights. The court would examine the act's provisions and objectives against the constitution's ensures related to property rights to ascertain if there is a justifiable limitation.
For example, if the implementation of the Forest Act leads to the expropriation of land without just compensation, this could conflict with the property rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The court could explore whether the public interest, including environmental concerns and biodiversity protection, sufficiently justifies any limitations on property rights. The legal review might also consider historical land rights, equitable compensation, and the principle of justice to assess the fairness of the act's impact on individuals' property rights.