Abstract In 2017, in the case of Fischer v Unlawful Occupiers, the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, was faced with a legal conundrum. Before it was an application for the eviction of 60 000 desperately poor persons from a number of privately owned properties. Due to the size of the unlawful occupation, the landowners sought an order that the municipality purchase or, alternatively, expropriate their properties. Such expropriation is allowed by s 9(3)(a) of the Housing Act, which provides that a municipality ‘may’ expropriate land for housing purposes. This article considers whether the court, in Fischer, could have interpreted the ‘may’ in s 9(3)(a) as a ‘must’. This would have enabled it to order the municipality to exercise its powers in terms of s 9(3)(a) to attempt to secure purchase of the land and failing which to expropriate.

中文翻译：

---

Fischer v Unlawful Occupiers：在案件的情况下，法院是否可以将《住房法》第 9(3)(a) 条中的“可能”解释为“必须”？

摘要 2017 年，在 Fischer v Unlawful Occupiers 一案中，南非高等法院西开普分庭面临着法律难题。之前是申请从一些私有财产中驱逐 60 000 名极度贫困的人。由于非法占用的规模，土地所有者要求市政府购买或征用他们的财产。《住房法》第 9(3)(a) 条允许这种征用，该法规定市政当局“可以”征用土地用于住房目的。本文考虑法院是否可以在 Fischer 案中将第 9(3)(a) 条中的“可能”解释为“必须”。