VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [59] This argument is unpersuasive. In Fedsure this Court described the central features of the principle of legality under the Constitution: ―It seems central to the conception of our constitutional order that the Legislature and Executive in every sphere are constrained by the principle that they may exercise no power and perform no function beyond that conferred upon them by law. At least in this sense, then, the principle of legality is implied within the terms of the interim Constitution. Whether the principle of the rule of law has greater content than the principle of legality is not necessary for us to decide here. We need merely hold that fundamental to the interim Constitution is a principle of legality.‖62 [60] The Court did not endeavour to determine when a local authority would be acting outside its legally conferred powers in particular situations. It stated the importance of legality and constitutionality. Drawing on the work of Dicey, the Court noted that there is ―nothing startling in this proposition – it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law‖.63 This axiomatic holding cannot serve to show that the City would act unlawfully if it accommodates the Occupiers‘ emergency situation. [61] The City relies on its Housing Report, the document in which its policy is contained, for its interpretation of Chapter 12. It submits that both the Housing Report and Chapter 12 make it clear that local government‘s capacity to provide emergency accommodation is directly dependent on funding from the provincial government. The City‘s responsibility is to process an application to the province for emergency assistance and to implement the emergency measure as approved and funded. But the 62 Id at para 58. 63 Id at para 56. 29