Thesis (LLD (Private Law))--Stellenbosch University, 2008. / The objective of this study is to examine the significance of introducing and strengthening apartment ownership in China. The research aims to explore and scrutinize various apartment ownership options from selected jurisdictions in order to provide a framework for similar legislation in China. Hence, the research seeks to provide a legislative framework for a uniform condominium statute by closely examining the South African Sectional Titles Act and the American Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. This comparative study will help to establish a uniform condominium statute suitable to the Chinese national character and compatible with the pace of the country’s economic development. The thesis is organized into seven chapters. The first chapter explains the research topic, theoretical basis of the thesis, and research methodology. Moreover, in this chapter the historical background and status quo of Chinese condominium institution are also illustrated. Following this introduction, Chapter Two explores the theoretical structure of condominium ownership. It depicts the legislative innovation arising from its sui generis features and explains the objects of condominium ownership on the basis of its unique definition. In Chapter Three, a wide spectrum of provisions is identified pertaining to the creation of condominium in China with reference to South African and American acts. Specifically, it observes the requirements for land intended for subdivision and the buildings that comprise a condominium project. It is highlighted that a condominium’s constitutive document is unregulated in China. Moreover, the characteristic Chinese land registration procedure is also presented. Chapter Four demonstrates the significance of the participation quota and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of different participation quota calculating methods. Chapter Five emphasizes that inherent in the condominium living is the interdependence of interests among unit owners. Consequently, this chapter focuses on condominium owners’ use and enjoyment of their apartments and the common property. Chapter Six elaborates on condominium management. This chapter examines the management body, the general meeting, the executive council and the managing agent. It concludes that having a well-structured management body is essential since a condominium community cannot function efficiently without a management association to represent all of the owners and to handle day-to-day operations. The last chapter concludes that China needs to enact a uniform condominium to protect private interests within the condominium context.

Thesis (LLM (Private Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The most important innovations of the revised German Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz which came into force on 1 July of 2007, concern the possiblity to amend parts of the constitution of the scheme (Gemeinschaftsordnung) by majority instead of unanimous resolution; the extension of the decision-making competence of sectional owners; the easier and more appropriate distinction between maintenance of and luxurious and non-luxurious improvements to the common property; the recognition that the body corporate has legal capacity to act in certain circumstances; the increase in the functions and powers of the professional manager (Verwalter); and the replacement of the procedure for non-contentious matters for the settlement of disputes by the ordinary civil court procedure. These predominantly valuable innovations raise the question in how far South African law could benefit from these amendments, and whether they could be used as a model for solving some of the unsatisfactory aspects of the South African sectional title law. The revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz now allows apartment owners to amend more provisions of the constitution by majority resolution. The harsh unanimity principle is in many contexts replaced by the majority principle and individual apartment owners are allowed to request an amendment of certain provisions of the constitution for important reasons. The Sectional Titles Act and the model management and conduct rules regulate the relationship between sectional owners in South Africa. Both the developer and the body corporate have the authority to supplement or amend the existing model rules by special rules. However, in comparison with the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz the management and conduct rules can only be amended by a unanimous or special resolution for management and conduct rules respectively and an individual owner is not allowed to request an amendment of a model rule on account of the unfair consequences suffered by him or her. An important advantage of the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz in comparison with section 32(4) of the Sectional Titles Act is furthermore that no written consent is required from the sectional owner who is adversely affected by an amendment of certain aspects of the participation quota. This requirement causes many problems. First, the circumstances in which an owner can be considered adversely affected have not been judicially determined. Second, the South African requirement is out of step with modern conditions, which witness the number of larger schemes increasing, because it allows one owner to block objectively necessary resolutions of the body corporate. The provision requiring the written consent of the adversely affected owner should therfore be repealed. The same applies to the general requirements for carrying out maintenance of and improvements to the common property. On closer analysis it becomes clear that the management rules contain no criteria to distinguish between maintenance and improvement measures or between luxurious and non-luxurious improvements. In final analysis these distinctions seem to depend on subjective rather than on objective criteria. By contrast the revised Wohnungseigentumsgesetz contains a clear objective distinction between the four categories of improvements to the common property. / GERMAN ABSTRACT: Seit dem 1. Juli 2007 gilt in Deutschland ein novelliertes Wohnungseigentumsgesetz. Die wichtigsten Neuerungen betreffen die Ermöglichung von Änderungen der Gemeinschaftsordnung nicht nur durch einstimmigen Beschluss der Wohnungseigentümer, die Erweiterung der Beschlusskompetenzen der Wohnungseigentümer, die Erleichterung der Durchführung baulicher Maßnahmen, die Gestaltung der Teilrechtsfähigkeit der Eigentümergemeinschaft und die Festlegung der erweiterten Rechte und Pflichten des Verwalters sowie die Überleitung des Verfahrens der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit in die Zivilprozessordnung. Die überwiegende Zahl der grundsätzlich zu begrüßenden Neuregelungen gibt auch für das südafrikanische Recht wertvolle Denkanstöße zu der Frage, ob eine Novellierung des Sectional Titles Act im Sinne der Neuregelungen des WEG eine Möglichkeit wäre, bestehende „Ungereimtheiten“ und Probleme zwischen den Wohnungseigentümern und im Wohnungseigentumskomplex in Südafrika besser lösen zu können. Im neuen novellierten WEG sind mehr als bislang Mehrheitsentscheidungen der Wohnungseigentümer zulässig. Statt des starren Einstimmigkeitsprinzips gilt nun oftmals das Mehrheitsprinzip. Zudem ist es auch dem einzelnen Wohnungseigentümer möglich, eine Änderung einer Vereinbarung zu verlangen, sofern ein Festhalten an einer geltenden Regelung aus schwerwiegenden Gründen unter Berücksichtigung aller Umstände des Einzelfalles, unbillig erscheint. Gesetzliche Regelungen, welche das Gemeinschaftsverhältnis in Südafrika ordnen, sind im Sectional Titles Act selbst und in den management und conduct rules der Annexure 8 und 9 des Sectional Titles Act enthalten. Zudem hat sowohl der developer als auch die Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft (body corporate) die Befugnis, die Rechte, Pflichten und Nutzungsrechte der Wohnungseigentümer in sogenannten „special rules“ selbst festzulegen. Im Vergleich zu den Regelungen des novellierten WEG ist es für Wohnungseigentümer in Südafrika jedoch schwerer, eine Änderung solcher Regelungen herbeizuführen. Wollen die Wohnungseigentümer von den Regelungen der management oder conduct Rules abweichen, können sie dies bezüglich der management rules nur durch einheitlichen Beschluss (resolution) und hinsichtlich der conduct rules mittels eines Beschlusses mit 75%er Mehrheit (special resolution). Ein individueller Anspruch des einzelnen Wohnungseigentümers auf Änderung, Ergänzung oder Ersetzung der rules bei Unbilligkeit besteht nicht. Ein gewichtiger Vorteil der Neuregelung des § 16 Abs. 3 WEG im Vergleich zu Artikel 32(4) des Sectional Titles Act ist zudem, dass es in Deutschland keiner schriftlichen Zustimmung des von der Entscheidung negativ betroffenen Wohnungseigentümers bedarf. Eine Änderung der participation quota hinsichtlich des Kostenverteilungsschlüssels ist nur möglich, wenn ein von der Entscheidung negativ betroffener Wohnungseigentümer seine schriftliche Zustimmung erteilt. Wann eine solche negative Betroffenheit („adversely affected“) letztlich vorliegt, ist zum einen nicht abschließend geklärt. Zum anderen ist gerade unter der Prämisse immer größerer werdender sectional titles schemes nicht mehr zeitgemäß, einem einzelnen Wohnungseigentümer die Möglichkeit zu geben, objektiv notwendige Entscheidungen der body corporate zu blockieren. Das Erfordernis der Zustimmungsbedürftigkeit eines negativ betroffenen Wohnungseigentümers sollte daher aufgegeben werden. Gleiches gilt für die generelle Zulässigkeit von baulichen Veränderungen. Bei genauerer Analyse des südafrikanischen Rechts wird zudem klar, dass in den Management Rules nicht definiert ist, was unter Verbesserungen, d.h. unter „improvements to the common property“ zu verstehen ist oder wie im Einzelfall zwischen luxuriösen und nicht-luxuriösen Aufwendungen zu unterscheiden ist, da es letztlich von der subjektiven Betrachtungsweise Einzelner abhängt. Das novellierte WEG enthält im Vergleich dazu eine klarere objektive Begriffsabgrenzung der vier Kategorien baulicher Maßnahmen. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die belangrikste veranderings aangebring deur die wysiging van die Duitse Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz wat op 1Julie 2007 in werking getree het, is die volgende: die wysiging van die reëls van die skema (Gemeinschaftsordnung) deur middel van ‘n meerderheidsbesluit in plaas van ‘n eenparige besluit; die uitbreiding van die besluitnemingsbevoegdhede van deeleienaars, die helder en meer gepaste vereistes vir die aanbring van verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom, die erkenning van die regsbevoegdheid van die regspersoon in sekere gevalle, die uitbreiding van die bevoegdhede van die professionele bestuurder en die vervanging van die informele geskilbeslegtingsprosedure deur die gewone hofprosedure. Hierdie veranderinge laat die vraag ontstaan in hoeverre die Suid-Afrikaanse reg voordeel kan trek uit hierdie wysigings en in hoeverre die veranderings as model kan dien vir wysiging van onbevredigende aspekte van die Wet op Deeltitels. Die gewysigde Wohnunungseigentumsgesetz laat deeleienaars tans toe om meer bepalings van die model reëls deur meerderheidsbesluit te verander. Die streng eenparigheidsbeginsel word in meerdere verbande deur die meerderheidsbeginsel vervang en deeleienaars word in sekere gevalle selfs toegelaat om aansoek te doen vir die wysiging van sommige bepalings op grond van ‘n geldige rede. Die Wet op Deeltitels en die model bestuurs- en gedragsreëls reguleer die regsverhouding tussen deeleienaars. In teenstelling met die gewysidge Duitse wet kan die die regspersoon die bestuursreëls slegs deur middel van ‘n eenparige besluit en die gedragsreëls deur middel van ‘n spesiale besluit verander en ‘n deeleienaar word nie toegelaat om ‘n verandering van die reëls aan te vra op grond van onregverdige benadeling nie. ‘n Belangrike voordeel van die gewysigde Duitse wet in vergelyking met artikel 32(4) van die Wet op Deeltitels is verder dat die skriftelike toestemming van ‘n deeleienaar wat deur die wysiging van sekere aspekte van die deelnemingkwota benadeel word, nie verkry hoef te word nie. Dit is ‘n groot verbetering. Eerstens is dit moeilik om te bepaal in watter omstandighede ‘n deeleienaar se regte deur die wysiging van die deelnemingskwota benadeel word. Tweedens is die Suid-Afrikaanse bepaling uit pas met moderne ontwikkelings waar ‘n deeleienaar in groot deeltitleontwikkelings toegelaat word om objektief redelike besluite van die regspersoon te blokkeer. Hierdie bepaling van die Wet op Deeltitels moet dus herroep word. Dieselfde geld vir die vereistes met betrekking tot die onderhoud van en verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom in die Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing. Op die keper beskou bevat die bestuursreëls geen geskikte riglyne om tussen die onderhoud van, en luukse en nieluukse verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom te onderskei nie. Die onderskeiding berus oënskynlik op subjektiewe eerder as objektiewe oorwegings. Daarenteen bevat die gewysigde Duitse Wet helder, objektiewe kriteria om onderhoud en vier soorte verbeterings aan die gemeenskaplike eiendom te onderskei.

LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Thesis (LLM )-University of Stellenbosch, 2004. / 150 leaves printed on single pages, preliminary pages i-xi and numbered pages 1-138. Includes bibliography. / Digitized at 600 dpi grayscale to pdf format (OCR), using a Bizhub 250 Konica Minolta Scanner. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The concept of sectional ownership has been unknown in the Botswana common law because of the maxim superficies solo cedit, which does not recognize separate ownership of apartments in a building. The law must always serve the felt and real needs of the times, and in order to give effect to those needs, the Botswana Sectional Titles Act was enacted in 1999. It is based on the South African Sectional Titles Act of 1986, as amended, which repealed the 1971 Act. In this thesis, a comparative analysis of the South African and Botswana sectional titles law is made to determine whether and, if so, how the existing position in the South African sectional titles law could aid interpretation and application of the sectional titles legislation of Botswana, specifically pertaining to aspects of establishment of sectional title schemes. The main focus is on the legislative provisions of both jurisdictions. However, South African case law is also considered. Landownership and sectional titles is discussed, to determine whether sectional ownership is genuine ownership. This entails a discussion on the publicity principle, which in the case of land is normally achieved by means of registration in the Deeds Registries. The thesis analyses the Botswana and South African statutes on the requirements and procedures involved in the establishment of sectional title schemes to bring to light any shortcomings that may exist in either of the two statutes. An understanding of the shortcomings of the South African statute is relevant to the interpretation and application of the Botswana statute. An examination of the procedural aspects of establishment of a sectional title scheme, as well as the roles of the parties involved in the establishment thereof is undertaken, so as to identify consequences that may ensue if they fail to comply with the requirements of either of the statutes. Consequently, a comparative analysis on the effect of registration of the sectional plan and opening of the sectional title register is made. Although it is not suggested that the Botswana Act should be completely similar to the South African Act, as Botswana may have its own peculiar circumstances, suggestions as to the amendment of the Botswana statute are made. Amendments would make the Botswana Act even more flexible, and would open up the possibilities of development to achieve greater access to land. Further more improvements to the Act will have to be made, some before its implementation, and some after a period of application of the Act, as real practical problems become apparent. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die konsep van deeltitel was tot dusver in Botswana se gemenereg onbekend weens die maxim superficies solo cedit, wat nie aparte eienaarskap van woonstelle in 'n gebou erken nie. Die wet moet altyd die werklike behoeftes van die tyd dien, en om te voldoen aan daardie behoeftes is die Botswana Wet op Deeltitels in 1999 uitgevaardig. Dit is gebaseer op die Suid-Afrikaanse Wet op Deeltitels van 1986, soos gewysig, wat die 1971 Wet herroep het. In hierdie tesis word 'n vergelykende studie gedoen van die Suid-Afrikaanse Wet op Deeltitels en die gelyknamige Wet in Botswana om te bepaal of, en indien wel, hoe die bestaande posisie in die Suid-Afrikaanse Wet op Deeltitels kan help met die interpretasie en toepassing van die deeltitel wetgewing van Botswana, veral waar dit gaan oor die vestiging van deeltitelskemas. Die tesis fokus op die wetgewende bepalings in albei lande, maar konsentreer op probleemareas in die nuwe Deeltitel wet van Botswana. Grondeienaarskap en deeltitels word bespreek om te bepaal of deeltiteleienaarskap werklike eienaarskap is. Dit behels 'n bespreking van die publisiteitsbeginsel, waaraan gewoonlik, in die geval van grond, voldoen word deur registrasie in die Akteregister. Die tesis ontleed die Suid-Afrikaanse statuut en die statuut van Botswana wat gaan oor die vereistes en prosedures betrokke by die vestiging van deeltitelskemas en enige tekortkominge wat bestaan in enige van die twee statute. Dit is belangrik om die tekortkominge van die Suid-Afrikaanse statuut te begryp, as die statuut van Botswana geinterpreteer en toegepas moet word. Die prosedures wat gevolg word in die vestiging van 'n deeltitelskema, asook die rolle van die verskillende partye betrokke, word bespreek sodat die gevolge as daar nie aan die vereistes van die statuut voldoen word nie, identifiseer kan word. Gevolglik word 'n vergelykende ontleding gedoen van die effek van registrasie van die deeltitelplan en die opening van die deeltitelregister. Die slothoofstuk bevat aanbevelings vir verdere navorsing. Alhoewel daar nie voorgestel word dat die wet in Botswana identies aan die Suid-Afrikaanse wet moet wees nie, (Botswana het te make met ander omstandighede) word voorstelle aan die hand gedoen vir die wysiging van die wet in Botswana. Hierdie wysigings sal die wet meer buigsaam maak en daar sal meer moontlikhede wees vir ontwikkeling wat groter toegang tot grond sal bewerkstellig. Verder sal daar verbeterings aan die wet aangebring moet word nadat dit eers in werking getree het en die werklike probleme kop uitsteek.

Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Various types of rules govern many areas of life in a sectional title scheme. The Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 prescribes model management and conduct rules in its regulations. Other non-prescribed rules are adopted by either the developers initially or later by the trustees of the body corporate. These rules provide for the control, management, administration, use and enjoyment of the sections and the common property in the scheme. Sectional owners and other occupiers have the entitlements of use and enjoyment of their individual sections and their share in the common property of the sectional title scheme, in proportion to their participation quota. These entitlements are restricted by the rules in operation within the scheme. Although these rules limit the entitlements of sectional owners and other occupiers in the interest of the sectional title community, they may not be unreasonable in their application and effect. In some instances, the application of the rules might exceed the bounds of reasonableness and result in unfair discrimination, arbitrary deprivation, unfair administrative action or restrictions on access to courts for dispute resolution. If certain rules are unreasonable in their application, based on one or more of the abovementioned grounds, the court must interpret the potentially impermissible rules and if the court cannot avoid a declaration of invalidity by implementing a constitutional remedy such as reading-up, reading-down, reading-in or severance, these impermissible rules will need to be substituted, amended or repealed and replaced because they are potentially unconstitutional and invalid. After a statutory and constitutional enquiry into the nature, scope, application, operation and effect of the rules governing sectional title schemes, it can be concluded that the various types of rules governing sectional title schemes restrict and limit sectional owners’ and occupiers’ entitlements of use and enjoyment of their individual sections and share in the common property. However, after being tested against section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 and other non-property rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, to determine if the rules are reasonable in their application and constitutionally permissible, it can be seen that the application of the rules do not necessarily amount to arbitrary deprivations of property and that they can be justified in terms of the Constitution because there is sufficient reasons for the particular regulations and they are procedurally fair. The various different types of rules governing sectional title schemes serve as reasonable regulations in as far as they contribute to a harmonious relationship between the trustees of the body corporate and the sectional owners and occupiers as members of the body corporate as well as between the members of the body corporate inter se. The rules serve an important function in this regard. Therefore, they are considered reasonable and constitutionally valid in as far as they do not enforce excessive regulation and as long as they are equally applicable and do not unfairly differentiate in their application. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Verskeie tipes reëls reguleer alledaagse aangeleenthede in ‘n deeltitelskema. Die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986 maak voorsiening vir voorgeskrewe bestuurs- en gedragsreëls in die regulasies. Die ontwikkelaars of die trustees van die regspersoon kan aanvanklik met die stigting van die skema of op ‘n latere stadium addisionele reëls byvoeg wat nie alreeds deur die Wet voorgeskryf is nie. Die reëls maak voorsiening vir die beheer, bestuur, administrasie, gebruik en genot van die eenheid en die gemeenskaplike eiendom in die skema. Die deeleienaars van deeltitelskemas en ander okkupeerders van die skema is geregtig om hulle individuele eenhede sowel as die gemeenskaplike eiendom, in ooreenstemming met hulle deelnemingskwota, te gebruik en geniet; en dit vorm deel van hul inhoudsbevoegdhede. Hierdie inhoudsbevoegdhede word beperk deur die skema se reëls. Afgesien daarvan dat die reëls die deeleienaar en ander okkupeerders se inhoudsbevoegdhede beperk in die belang van die deeltitelgemeenskap, mag die reëls nie onredelik wees in die toepassing daarvan nie. In sommige gevalle kan die toepassing van die reëls die perke van redelikheid oorskry en neerkom op ongeregverdigde diskriminasie, arbitrêre ontneming, ongeregverdigde administratiewe handeling of ‘n beperking plaas op toegang tot die howe met die oog op dispuutoplossing. Indien daar bevind word dat sekere reëls onredelik is in die toepassing daarvan op grond van een of meer van die voorafgemelde gronde, moet die hof artikel 39 van die Grondwet volg en die reël interpreteer om ‘n deklarasie van ongeldigheid te vermy. As die hof dit nie kan vermy deur middel van konstitutusionele remedies soos “op-lesing”, “af-lesing”, “afskeiding” of “in-lesing” nie, sal die reëls gewysig of geskrap en vervang moet word, anders sal die reël ongrondwetlik wees en ongeldig verklaar word. Na afloop van ‘n statutêre en konstitusionele ondersoek ten opsigte van die aard, omvang, toepassing, werking en effek van die reëls wat deeltitelskemas reguleer word daar bevind dat die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer ‘n beperking plaas op die inhousdbevoegdhede van deeltiteleienaars en ander okkupeerders wat betref die reg om die eenheid sowel as die gemeenskaplike eiendom te gebruik en geniet. Ten einde te bepaal of die reëls redelik in die toepassing daarvan sowel as grondwetlik toelaatbaar is, word dit getoets in terme van artikel 25 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 1996 en ander regte in die Handves van Regte. Daar word bevind dat die toepassing van die reëls nie noodwendig ‘n arbitrêre ontneming van eiendom is nie en dat dit geregverdig kan word in terme van die Grondwet omdat daar voldoende redes vir die spesifieke regulasies is en omdat dat hulle prosedureel billik is. Die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer dien as redelike regulasies sover dit bydra tot ‘n harmonieuse verhouding tussen die trustees van die regspersoon, die deeltiteleienaars en die okkupeerders as lede van die regspersoon sowel as tussen die lede van die regspersoon inter se. Die reëls het ‘n belangrike funksie in hierdie verband. Die reëls word geag redelik en grondwetlik geldig te wees sover dit nie buitensporige regulasies afdwing nie, gelyk toegepas word en daar nie ongeregverdig gedifferensieer word in die toepassing daarvan nie.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Over the years sectional ownership satisfied the psychological need of many South Africans to acquire home-ownership and it is currently estimated that there are more than 780 000 sectional title units throughout South Africa. The concept of sectional ownership consists of three elements, namely individual ownership of a section (residential or commercial); joint ownership of the common parts of the sectional title scheme and membership of the body corporate which governs the sectional title community. Sectional ownership is therefore a unique statutory institution with its own characteristics. An imperative of every sectional title scheme is to strive for financial stability, happiness and harmony in an intensified, diverse community where the objects of ownership, the individual units, are physically interdependent. The Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986, as amended, therefore imposes numerous financial and social obligations on sectional owners. These obligations require each owner to give up a certain degree of freedom that he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property. Ultimately the success of a sectional title scheme will depend upon the necessary co-operation and support of its members for compliance with these obligations. Since non-compliance can destroy the financial stability and social harmony in a sectional title scheme, effective procedures for the enforcement of these financial and social obligations are essential. Accordingly, effective sanctions are a sine qua non for a financially viable and socially successful sectional title scheme. This thesis provides a critical analysis of the various financial and social obligations that are imposed on sectional owners, as well as the measures available for their enforcement. It will become evident that the sanctions in the South African sectional title legislation for non-compliance with these obligations are conspicuously few and far between. It is generally accepted that the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 does not have sharp enough „teeth‟ to deal effectively with the non-compliance of these obligations. Consequently, the thesis will also focus on sanctions that are used in foreign jurisdictions to enforce sectional owners‟ financial and social obligations, with the aim to identify sanctions that may be adopted in the South African context to render the enforcement of these obligations more efficient and effective. In conclusion it will be recommended that the only manner in which financial stability and social harmony can be restored in a troubled sectional title scheme is to introduce legislation which allows the body corporate as a last resort to exclude a persistent offender who makes it impossible for the other sectional owners to share the sectional owners‟ community with him or her temporarily from this community. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Met die verloop van tyd sedert die eerste deeltitelwetgewing in 1971 in Suid Afrika ingevoer is, het deeleiendom die droom van menige Suid-Afrikaners verwesenlik om eiendomsreg van „n eie woning te verkry. Huidige statistieke dui daarop dat daar meer as 780 000 deeltiteleenhede in Suid Afrika is. Drie elemente word in die begrip „deeleiendom‟ saamgevat, naamlik individuele eiendomsreg van „n deel (residensiëel of kommersiëel), mede-eindomsreg van die gemeenskaplike gedeeltes van „n skema en lidmaatskap van „n regspersoon. Deeleiendom is dus „n unieke statutêre instelling met sy eie ongewone karaktertrekke. Die belangrikste doelwit van elke deeltitelskema is om finansiële stabiliteit, geluk en harmonie in „n geϊntensifeerde, diverse gemeenskap waar individuele eiendomseenhede, fisies interafhanklik is, te bewerkstellig. Die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986, soos gewysig, onderwerp deeleienaars daarom aan verskeie finansiële en sosiale verpligtinge wat meebring dat elke deeleienaar „n sekere mate van vryheid moet prys gee wat hy andersins sou geniet het as hy eienaar was van „n huis op „n private erf. Die uiteindelike sukses van „n deeltitelskema is grotendeels afhanklik van die samewerking en ondersteuning van sy lede wat betref die nakoming van hierdie verpligtinge. Omdat nie-nakoming die finansiële stabiliteit en sosiale harmonie kan versteur word doeltreffende maatreëls vereis vir die afdwinging van hierdie finansiële en sosiale verpligtinge. „n Deeltitelskema kan slegs met sukses bestuur word indien op doeltreffende sanksies gesteun kan word. Hierdie tesis fokus op „n kritiese analise van die verskeie finansiële en sosiale verpligtinge waaraan deeleienaars onderhewig is, en die maatreëls wat aangewend kan word om hierdie verpligtinge af te dwing. Daar sal aangetoon word dat die sanksies in die Suid-Afrikaanse deeltitelwetgewing vir die nie-nakoming van hierdie verpligtinge gans te min, en boonop uiters ondoeltreffend is. Daarom word algemeen aanvaar dat die „tande‟ van die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986 nie skerp genoeg is om die nie-nakoming van hierdie verpligtinge doeltreffend te straf nie. Gevolglik sal die tesis ook fokus op sanksies wat in buitelandse regstelsels aangewend word om die finansiële en sosiale verpligtinge van deeleienaars af te dwing. Die oogmerk hiermee is om buitelandse sanksies te identifiseer wat met vrug in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks aangewend kan word ten einde die nie-nakoming van hierdie verpligtinge doeltreffend hok te slaan. Ter afsluiting sal voorgestel word dat finansiële stabiliteit en sosiale harmonie in „n erg ontwrigte deeltitelskema slegs herstel kan word indien wetgewing aangeneem word wat die regspersoon toelaat om „n deeleienaar wat ondanks waarskuwings dit vir mede-deeleienaars onmoontlik maak om saam met hom of haar in dieselfde deeleiendomsgemeenskap te leef tydelik van die skema te verwyder.