01935nas a2200205   4500000000100000008004100001260001200042653002400054653002300078653002600101653001700127653002200144653002100166653003600187100001400223245017100237856016400408490000700572520115000579       2023                            d  c2023///10aintangible heritage10afailure to consult10aFirst Nations Peoples10aheritage law10aprima facie right10aurgent interdict10aviolation of fundamental rights1 aP. Kantor00aHands off our Intangible Cultural Heritage-Khoin v Jenkins in re: Observatory Civic Association v Trustees for the Time Being of the Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85178301341&doi=10.17159%2f1727-3781%2f2023%2fv26i0a17143&partnerID=40&md5=81fdbbaef6991c2fa912384487207f640 v263 aThis case note analyses an appeal decision (Khoin v Jenkins in Re: Observatory Civic Association v Trustees for the Time Being of the Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust [2023] 1 All SA 110 (WCC)) handed down in 2022 by the Western Cape High Court, its purpose being to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the decision and to comment on possible future developments. The text of the judgment is interpreted in the light of judicial precedent, literature and domestic (South African) and international law. One of the key findings is that "intangible heritage" is an integral part of both domestic and international law, and the Khoin-case gives judicial recognition to the concept as a part of South African heritage law. One of the main criticisms levelled against the judgment is that it does not adhere to judicial precedent in failing to find that the right to consultation of First Nations Peoples before administrative action is taken that allegedly violates their constitutional rights to intangible heritage is sufficient to satisfy the test for the existence of a prima facie right for the purposes of obtaining an interim interdict.