University of Macau / Faculty of Law

published_or_final_version / Housing Management / Master / Master of Housing Management

Bibliography: leaves 353-361 / [6], 361 leaves : ill., facsim., map ; 30 cm. / Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, 1990

Thesis (LLM (Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2004. / 139 leaves printed on single pages, preliminary pages i-ix and numbered pages 1-130. Includes bibliography. / Digitized at 600 dpi grayscale to pdf format (OCR), using a Bizhub 250 Konica Minolta Scanner. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: South Africa must address the need for adequate housing. Since democracy in 1994, the government has promulgated a number of acts to achieve the goal of adequate housing for all. These include the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) and the Rental Housing Act (RHA). The problem for the courts is knowing when to apply each act. To reach the goal embodied in the constitutional right of adequate housing for all, the government has invested R18 billion in housing since 1994. Despite this, the need for housing has escalated. The RHA, in which the legislature tried to create a balance between the rights of landlords and tenants, followed. This was done in order to alleviate some of the pressure to ensure access to land, which rests solely on the shoulders of the government. The legislature tried to create a sphere into which private investors would want to invest their money. A number of recent cases dealing with tenants who defaulted on their rentals and the landlord's capacity to effect eviction raised awareness about the existing inadequacies of the law in this particular field. In a Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, the court found that when a landlord wants to evict a defaulting tenant the time-consuming and costly procedure of PIE should be used. The assumption underlying this study is that PIE should not be applicable in cases of evicting a defaulting tenant. The rights and duties of the various parties involved in rental housing therefore need to be examined. The main aim is, however, to ascertain which procedure should be employed when obtaining an eviction order against a party holding over and what the effects are when the most appropriate eviction procedure is not used. A well-regulated relationship would ensure the best balance of interest for the landlord, tenant and the government by creating a market in which a landlord could make money out of letting and more tenants could obtain adequate housing through renting. A further assumption is that the rei vindicatio should be used when having a defaulting tenant evicted. It offers an alternative procedure that does not undermine the objectives of the housing legislation. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Suid-Afrika ervaar tans 'n probleem met die verskaffing van behuising vir almal. Sedert die land se verwerwing van demokrasie in 1994 het die wetgewer 'n hele reeks wette aangeneem om die probleem op te los, ondermeer die Wet op Huurbehuising en die Wet op die Voorkoming van Onwettige Uitsetting en Onregmatige Okkupasie van Grond (hierna verwys as PIE). Die howe ondervind soms probleme wanneer daar bepaal moet word wanneer 'n spesifieke wet van toepassing behoort te wees en wanneer. Ten spyte van die R18 miljard wat die regering reeds bestee het aan armes sonder huise, het die getal mense wat sonder geskikte behuising woon gegroei. Die wetgewer het deur die promulgasie van die Wet op Huurbehuising gepoog om 'n mark te skep waarin daar behuising verskaf sal word in die vorm van huurbehuising. Terselfdertyd sal die privaatsektor baie nodige geld in die huurmark kan investeer. Onlangse regsspraak in die verband dui daarop dat daar nog baie leemtes bestaan veral met verwysing na uitsetting. Na 'n resente Appelhof beslissing sal die verhuurder van die meer tydrowende en duurder prosedures in PIE gebruik moet maak om 'n persoon uitgesit te kry. Die onderliggende aanname is dat PIE nie van toepassing behoort te wees wanneer 'n verhuurder 'n huurder wat agterstallig is met die huur wil uitsit nie. Die regte van beide huurder en verhuurder word gevolglik bestudeer. Die hoof-oogmerk van die studie is egter om vas te stel watter uitsettingsprosedure die beste sal wees en wat die gevolge sal wees indien die prosedure nie gebruik word nie. 'n Goed gereguleerde huurmark sal sorg dat huurders genoegsame beskerming geniet, dat die verhuurder geld sal kan maak uit die huurmark en dat die regering se druk tot 'n mate verlig word. 'n Verdere aanname is dat die prosedure vir die rei vindicatio die korrekte prosedure is om te gebruik om 'n huurder wat versuim om sy/haar huur te betaal uit te sit. Die rei vindicatio word gevolglik bestudeer en daar word getoon dat die prosedure aansienlik van die van PIE verskil. Dit bied 'n alternatief en is nie van so aard dat dit die behuisings wetgewing se oogmerke belemmer nie.

The objective of conducting primary research for the Summit Place Apartment Homes is to create a profile of people that are presently living in Summit Place. When dealing with apartment properties, marketing plans are definitely a necessity, as well as a good crisis plan. The residents' main concerns were safety and better customer service.

Hierdie proefskrif handel oor aspekte van inaedificatio (bebouing) in die Suid-Afrikaanse, Engelse en Nederlandse reg. Die klem val op die maatstawwe wat aangewend word om te bepaal of aanhegting van ‘n roerende saak aan ‘n onroerende saak plaasgevind het. Die maatstawwe in die drie stelsels toon ooreenkomste en verskille. Een ooreenkoms is dat die graad en wyse van aanhegting in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg oorweeg word, terwyl daar in die Engelse reg slegs na die graad van aanhegting gekyk word. In die Nederlandse reg word ’n duursame verbinding vereis om te bepaal of bestanddeelvorming plaasgevind het, en word gevra of verwydering van die saak sonder beskadiging kan plaasvind. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg word die doel van die aangehegte saak oorweeg, hoewel Innes HR dit nie in MacDonald Ltd v Radin NO & The Potchefstroom Dairies & Industries Co Ltd so formuleer nie. Die aard van die roerende saak word in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg oorweeg, terwyl die aard en ontwerp van die roerende saak in die Nederlandse reg oorweeg word. In die Engelse reg word die doel waarvoor die aanhegting gemaak is oorweeg om die bedoeling met die aanhegting te bepaal. Die vraag is of die saak vir die permanente en substansiële verbetering van die gebou (grond) aangeheg is, of vir ’n tydelike doel of vir die beter benutting van die chattel. Die Nederlandse reg beklemtoon die bestemming van die aanhegting. Die opvallendste verskil tussen die Suid-Afrikaanse reg en die ander twee stelsels is die belang van die subjektiewe bedoeling van een of ander betrokkene. Die regsposisie van huurders wat sake aanheg verskil van dié van ander aanhegters. In al drie regstelsels kan huurders voor afloop van die huurtermyn sommige aangehegte sake verwyder, mits die huurgrond in dieselfde toestand gelaat word as waarin dit was voor die aanhegting. Die drie stelsels vertoon verskille soos dat onsekerheid bestaan oor wie die eienaar van die aangehegte sake is voor verwydering. In die Engelse reg heg bedryfsaanhegtings en ornamentele aanhegtings, nie aan nie. Ingevolge die Nederlandse reg is die verhuurder gedurende die huurtermyn eienaar van die aanhegtings, aangesien aanhegting plaasvind sodra die roerende sake aan die huurgrond heg. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg hieroor is onduidelik. / This thesis deals with aspects of inaedificatio (building) in South African, English and Dutch law. The emphasis falls on the criteria that are applied to determine whether attachment of a movable to an immovable thing occurred. The criteria in the three systems show similarities and differences. One similarity is that in South African law the degree and manner of attachment are considered, while in English law only the degree of attachment is considered. To determine whether one thing became a component part of another thing (bestanddeelvorming) a durable connection is required In Dutch law. The question is whether removal can take place without causing damage. The purpose of the attached thing is considered in South African law, although Innes CJ did not formulate this criterion in this manner in MacDonald Ltd v Radin NO & The Potchefstroom Dairies & Industries Co Ltd. The nature of the movable thing is relevant, while the nature and design of the movable thing are considered in Dutch law. In English law the purpose of the attachment is considered to determine the intention with the attachment. The question is whether the thing was attached for the permanent and substantial improvement of the building (land) or for a temporary purpose or for the better use of the chattel. The destination (bestemming) of the attachment is considered in Dutch law. The most significant difference between South African law and the other two systems is the importance of the subjective intention of some person involved in the situation. The legal position of lessees who attach movales differs from that of other persons who make such attachments. In all three legal systems lessees may remove certain attached movables before the expiry of the term of lease as long as the leased land is left in the same condition that it was in before the attachment. The three systems also differs for example it is not certain who the owner of the attached things is before removal of the attachments. In English law trade and ornamental fixtures do not attach. In Dutch law the lessor is the owner of the attachments during the term of lease, because attachment takes place when the movable things are fixed to the leased land. The position in South African law on this is unclear. / Private Law / LL. D.

Thesis (LLD )--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation considers the housing rights of unlawful occupiers in the post-1994 constitutional dispensation. Section 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 affords everyone a right of access to adequate housing. This provision is a decisive break with the apartheid past, where forced eviction banished black people to the periphery of society. The central hypothesis of this dissertation is that the Constitution envisages the creation of a society that is committed to large-scale transformation. This dissertation posits that it is impossible to realise the full transformative potential of section 26 of the Constitution in the absence of an independent and substantive understanding of what it means to have access to adequate housing. This dissertation traverses legal theory as well as the common law of evictions, constitutional law and international law. A consciously interdisciplinary approach is adopted in seeking to develop the content of section 26 of the Constitution, drawing on literature from social and political science. This dissertation develops an organising framework for giving substantive content to section 26(1) of the Constitution with reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; the Revised European Social Charter, the American Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This dissertation shows that the adjudication of eviction disputes has moved away from a position under the common law where Courts had no discretion to refuse eviction orders based on the personal circumstances of the squatters. The adjudication of the eviction of unlawful occupiers now requires a context-sensitive analysis that seeks to find concrete and case-specific solutions. These solutions are achieved by considering what would be just and equitable for both the land owner and the unlawful occupiers. This dissertation also shows that the government has a markedly different role to fulfil in post-apartheid evictions through the necessary joinder of local authorities to eviction proceedings, meaningful engagement with unlawful occupiers and the provision of alternative accommodation in terms of its constitutional and statutory obligations. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie proefskrif ondersoek die behuisingsregte van onregmatige okkupeerders in die post-1994 grondwetlike bedeling. Artikel 26 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 1996 gee elke persoon die reg op toegang tot geskikte behuising. Hierdie bepaling is ‘n duidelike breuk met die apartheid-verlede waar gedwonge uitsettings swart mense na die periferie van die samelewing verban het. Die sentrale hipotese van hierdie proefskrif is dat die Grondwet beoog om ‘n samelewing te skep wat verbind is tot grootskaalse transformasie. Hierdie proefskrif voer aan dat dit onmoontlik is om die volle transformerende potensiaal van artikel 26 van die Grondwet te verwesenlik in die afwesigheid van ‘n onafhanklike en substantiewe begrip van wat dit beteken om toegang tot geskikte behuising te hê. Hierdie proefskrif deurkruis regsteorie sowel as die gemenereg ten aansien van uitsettings, staatsreg and internasionale reg. ‘n Doelbewuste interdisiplinêre benadering word gevolg in die soeke na die ontwikkeling van die inhoud van artikel 26 van die Grondwet met verwysing na literatuur uit die sosiale- en politieke wetenskappe. Die proefskrif ontwikkel ‘n organiserende raamwerk waarmee substantiewe inhoud aan artikel 26(1) van die Grondwet verleen kan word met verwysing na die Internasionale Verdrag op Ekonomiese, Sosiale en Kulturele Regte; die Konvensie vir die Beskerming van Menseregte en Fundamentele Vryhede; die Hersiene Europese Sosiale Handves; die Amerikaanse Konvensie op Menseregte en die Afrika Handves op Mense en Persoonsregte. Hierdie proefskrif wys dat die beregting van uitsettingsdispute wegbeweeg het van ’n posisie onder die gemenereg waar howe geen diskresie gehad het om uitsettingsbevele te weier op grond van die persoonlike omstandighede van die plakkers nie. Die beregting van uitsettingsdispute vereis nou ‘n konteks-sensitiewe analise wat strewe daarna om konkrete oplossings te vind. Hierdie oplossings word bereik deur in ag te neem wat reg en billik sal wees vir beide die eienaar en die onregmatige okkupeerders. Die proefskrif wys ook dat die regering ‘n merkbaar nuwe rol vervul in post-apartheid uitsettings deur die noodsaaklike voeging van munisipaliteite tot uitsettings, sinvolle interaksie met onregmatige okkupeerders en die voorsiening van alternatiewe akkommodasie in terme van grondwetlike and statutêre pligte.

Thesis (LLD (Private Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: South African courts seem to be adopting a new approach to the problem of building encroachments. For pragmatic and policy reasons courts are now inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of leaving building encroachments in place, against compensation, despite the common law right to demand removal. It has been widely accepted that courts indeed have the discretion to award damages instead of removal of the building encroachment. However, the circumstances involved and the consequences of these orders are uncertain and hence these orders result in confusion. It is unclear how this discretion is exercised. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether this discretion includes the power to order transfer of the encroached-upon land to the encroacher. There are doctrinal and constitutional implications that may be triggered by these court orders that leave building encroachments in place. The doctrinal issues centre on what happens when an encroachment is not removed and nothing is said about the rights of the respective parties after the order is made. Possible solutions are investigated to provide a doctrinally sound outcome in encroachment disputes. It is clear that the encroacher is allowed to continue occupying the portion of property on which the encroachment is erected. It seems as though a use right is indirectly created when the encroachment remains in place. The constitutional difficulty lies in the fact that the court orders may result in infringements that conflict with section 25 of the Constitution. The focus is specifically to determine whether these orders result in the compulsory loss of property or property rights. With reference to Germany, the Netherlands and Australia, a comparative perspective is provided in order to support the doctrinal and policy arguments. The comparative law provides a source of guidelines for what may work effectively and informs the ultimate suggestion of this project, namely the need for legislation to regulate building encroachments in South Africa. The legislation envisaged would have to prescribe with at least some sort of certainty how and in which circumstances the discretion should be exercised. It should also provide clarity with regard to the right that is created when the encroachment is not removed and how the compensation that is awarded in exchange for removal, should be determined. The unnecessary confusion and uncertainty that result from court orders made in the context of building encroachments may be cleared up by legislation. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Suid Afrikaanse howe begin al hoe meer om ‘n nuwe benadering te volg ten opsigte van oorskrydende bouwerke. Dit lyk asof howe meer geneig is om hul diskresie uit te oefen ten gunste daarvan om die oorskryding vir pragmatiese en beleidsredes teen vergoeding in stand te hou, ten spyte van die gemeenregtelike reg om verwydering te eis. Daar word algemeen aanvaar dat howe wel die diskresie het om in die konteks van oorskrydende bouwerke skadevergoeding toe te ken in plaas van verwydering. Die omstandighede betrokke by en die nagevolge van hierdie beslissings is egter onseker en daarom lei dit tot verwarring. Dit is nie altyd duidelik hoe hierdie diskresie uitgeoefen word nie. Daarbenewens is daar ook onsekerheid oor of die diskresie die bevoegdheid insluit om oordrag van die grond waarop die oorsrkryding staan, te gelas. Die beslissings kan ook doktrinêre en grondwetlike implikasies hê. In terme van die doktrinêre probleem is daar vrae oor wat gebeur as die oorskryding nie verwyder word nie en niks word gesê oor die regte van beide partye in die dispuut nie. Oplossings word ondersoek om die beste moontlike doktrinêre verduideliking te probeer vasstel. Die eienaar van die oorskrydende bouwerk mag voortgaan om die grond waarop die oorskryding staan te okkupeer. Dit lyk asof ‘n gebruiksreg indirek geskep word ten gunste van die oorskryder wanneer die oorskryding nie verwyder word nie. ‘n Grondwetlike probleem mag veroorsaak word deur die moontlike oortreding van artikel 25 van die Grondwet. Die beslissings mag lei tot die gedwonge verlies van grond of regte, wat aan die vereistes van artikel 25 moet voldoen. ‘n Vergelykende perspektief met verwysing na Duitsland, Nederland en Australië word verskaf om die doktrinêre en beleidsargumente te ondersteun. Die vergelykende reg bied ‘n bron van riglyne vir wat effektief kan werk en het dus die wetgewing wat in hierdie proefskrif voorgestel word geïnspireer. Die wetgewing wat beoog word sal moet voorskryf hoe en onder watter omstanghede die diskresie uitgeoefen moet word. Dit moet ook sekerheid gee ten opsigte van die reg wat geskep word as die oorskryding nie verwyder word nie en hoe die skadevergoeding bepaal moet word. Die onnodige verwaring en onsekerheid wat veroorsaak word deur hierdie hofbeslissings kan opgeklaar word deur die promulgering van wetgewing om oorskrydende bouwerke te reguleer.

Thesis (LLD (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / Bibliography / ABSTRACT ENGLISH: The dissertation considers the tenure rights of urban residential tenants in the post-1994 constitutional dispensation. The 1996 Constitution mandates tenure reform in two instances. Firstly, section 25(6) (read with section 25(9)) mandates the legislature to enact legislation that would provide legally secure tenure rights for a person or community whose tenure of land is insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices. This form of tenure reform is race-based. Secondly, section 26(3) mandates the courts to consider all relevant circumstances during eviction proceedings. In terms of this provision the court can refuse to grant the eviction order on the basis of the occupier's socio-economic weakness, which is a more general form of class-related tenure reform. The Constitution also ensures the right to have access to adequate housing, while the legislature must introduce measures that would give effect to this right (sections 26(1) and 26(2)). To determine whether the current landlord-tenant regime in South Africa is able to provide tenants with secure occupation rights and access to rental housing, it is compared to landlord-tenant regimes in pre-1994 South Africa, the United Kingdom, New York State and Germany. The landlord-tenant regimes are considered in light of changing socio-economic circumstances where the state had to assist households during housing shortages. The dissertation assesses the efficiency of landlord-tenant law, combined with regulatory measures that ensure substantive tenure rights and rent restrictions, as a form of tenure that could help alleviate housing shortages and initiate a new landlord-tenant regime for South Africa that would give effect to the Constitution. The dissertation concludes that the current substantive tenure rights of urban residential tenants are largely based on the common law, which is associated with weak tenure security. The landlord-tenant laws, namely the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 and the Social Housing Act 16 of 2008, fail to provide urban residential tenants with substantive tenure rights. The legislature has failed to enact a law that gives effect to section 25(6) in the landlord-tenant framework. The legislature did enact the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) in order to give effect to section 26(3). Recently the courts interpreted PIE to provide marginalized tenants with substantive tenure protection during eviction proceedings. However, to give effect to section 25(6) legislation should grant residential tenants substantive tenure rights that are legally secure prior to eviction. The legislature enacted the Rental Housing Act and the Social Housing Act to give effect to the right to housing (section 26 of the Constitution) in the landlord-tenant framework. These laws fail to promote access to rental housing as a form of tenure that could help alleviate housing shortages. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die proefskrif oorweeg die okkupasieregte van stedelike residensiële huurders in die post-1994 konstitusionele bedeling. Die 1996 Grondwet bepaal dat okkupasieregte in twee gevalle hervorm moet word. Eerstens gee artikel 25(6) (gelees met artikel 25(9)) opdrag aan die wetgewer om wetgewing te verorden wat okkupasieregte met verblyfsekerheid aan 'n person of gemeenskap sal verleen indien so 'n person of gemeenskap tans grond okkupeer met okkupasieregte wat onseker is as gevolg van vorige rasgebaseerde wetgewing. Hierdie tipe hervorming is rasgebaseer. Tweedens gee artikel 26(3) opdrag aan die howe om alle relevante faktore te oorweeg as deel van enige uitsettingsprosedure. In terme van hierdie bepaling is die howe gemagtig om 'n uitsettingsbevel te weier op die basis van die okkupeerder se sosio-ekonomiese kwesbaarheid. Hierdie tipe hervorming is 'n meer algemene klasgebaseerde hervorming. Artikel 26(1) (gelees met artikel 26(2)) van die Grondwet bepaal dat elkeen die reg op toegang tot geskikte behuising het, terwyl die staat redelike wetgewende en ander maatreëls moet tref om hierdie reg te verwesenlik. Ten einde te bepaal of die huidige huurbehuisingstelsel in Suid-Afrika voldoende is, met inagneming van die stelsel se vermoë om huurders te voorsien van okkupasieregte met verblyfsekerheid en van toegang tot huurbehuising, word dit vergelyk met die huurbehuisingstelsels in Suid Afrika voor 1994, die Verenigde Koninkryk, New York Staat en Duitsland. Hierdie huurbehuisingstelsels word bespreek met inagneming van veranderinge in die sosio-ekonomiese omstandighede waartydens die staat gedurende behuisingstekorte huishoudings moes ondersteun. Die doeltreffendheid van huurbehuising word beoordeel met verwysing na regulasies wat substantiewe okkupasieregte verseker en beperkings plaas op huurpryse om 'n vorm van verblyfreg daar te stel wat die behuisingstekort kan verminder ten einde 'n nuwe huurbehuisingstelsel vir Suid-Afrika te inisieër wat gevolg aan die Grondwet sal gee. Die proefskrif lei tot die gevolgtrekking dat die huidige substantiewe okkupasieregte van stedelike residensiële huurders grotendeels op die gemenereg gebaseer is. Die gemenereg maak nie voorsiening vir sterk substantiewe okkupasieregte nie. Die huidige huurbehuisingswetgewing, naamlik die Wet op Huurbehuising 50 van 1999 en die Wet op Maatskaplike Behuising 16 van 2008, slaag nie daarin om substantiewe okkupasieregte vir stedelike residensiële huurders te voorsien nie. Die wetgewer het nie daarin geslaag om 'n wet te promulgeer wat in die huurbehuisingsraamwerk aan artikel 25(6) effek gee nie. Die wetgewer het wel die Wet op die Voorkoming van Onwettige Uitsetting en Onregmatige Besetting van Grond 19 van 1998 verorden om effek te gee aan artikel 26(3) van die Grondwet. Hierdie Wet is onlangs so deur die howe geïnterpreteer dat dit kwesbare huurders tydens uitsettingsprosedures met substantiewe okkupasieregte beskerm. Om aan artikel 25(6) te voldoen moet wetgewing egter substantiewe okkupasieregte met verblyfsekerheid aan residensiële huurders verskaf voordat hulle uitgesit word. Die wetgewer het die Wet op Huurbehuising en die Wet op Maatskaplike Behuising verorden ten einde effek aan die reg op behuising (artikel 26 van die Grondwet) in die gebied van huurbehuising te gee. Geeneen van hierdie wette slaag daarin om toegang tot behuising, en veral huurbehuising as 'n vorm van okkupasie, te bevorder ten einde die behuisingtekort te verminder nie.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The lessor's tacit hypothec improves the chances of the lessor to recover rent in arrears. This real security right arises by operation of law and attaches to the lessee's movable property found on the leased premises when rent is due but not paid. The extension of the lessor‟s tacit hypothec to third parties' property is the remedy's most controversial feature. The extension is supposedly based on one of two theoretical justifications, namely implied consent and the doctrine of estoppel. According to the implied-consent theory, the extension is based on the premise that the third party consented (explicitly or by implication) that his property can serve as security for the payment of the lessee's arrear rent. The basis of the second theory, the doctrine of estoppel, operates as a limitation on the rei vindicatio of the third party. Over the years discourse has shown that there are uncertainties surrounding these justifications. Recent debate has also shown that if constitutionally challenged, the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec could amount to arbitrary deprivation of third parties' property. The aim of this thesis is to establish whether and how the existing common law principles that provide for the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec over property belonging to third parties are affected by section 25(1) of the Constitution. Consequently, the thesis describes, analyses and scrutinises the general principles regulating the lessor's tacit hypothec, and more specifically the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec to third parties' property, in view of section 25(1) of the Constitution. Taking into considering the recent statutory protection of third parties' property, the thesis concludes that the extension of the lessor's tacit hypothec does not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of third parties' property because correct application of the common law principles that provide for the extension and the statutory protection that has been introduced to exclude a large number of cases from the reach of the extension adequately protect third parties' property interests. Therefore, the requirements of section 25(1) are satisfied. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die verhuurder se stilswyende hipoteek verbeter sy kanse om agterstallige huur van sy huurder in te vorder. Wanneer die huur opeisbaar word, maar die huurder versuim om tydig te betaal, kom hierdie saaklike sekerheidsreg deur regswerking tot stand en dit dek alle roerende sake wat op die verhuurde perseel gevind word. Die uitbreiding van die stilwyende hipoteek na eiendom wat aan derde partye behoort is die remedie se mees kontroversiële eienskap. Hierdie uitbreiding van die hipoteek se toepassingsveld berus na bewering op een van twee regverdigingsgronde, naamlik die derde se geïmpliseerde toestemming en die leerstuk van estoppel. Volgens die geïmpliseerde toestemming-teorie kan die hipoteek na derdes se bates uitgebrei word op die veronderstelling dat sodanige derde partye toegestem het (uitdruklik of by implikasie) dat hulle eiendom as sekuriteit vir betaling van die huurder se agterstallige huur mag dien. Die tweede teorie steun op die beperking wat die leerstuk van estoppel op die rei vindicatio van die derde party plaas. Oor die jare het debatte aangedui dat daar onsekerhede rondom hierdie regverdigingsgronde bestaan. Onlangse debatte het ook aangetoon dat, indien dit grondwetlik getoets word, die uitbreiding van die hipoteek moontlik mag neerkom op ‟n arbitrêre ontneming van die derdes se eiendom. Die doel van hierdie tesis is om vas te stel of en hoe die bestaande gemeenregtelike beginsels wat die stilswyende hipoteek na bates van derdes uitbrei deur artikel 25(1) van die Grondwet beïnvloed word. Die tesis bespreek, analiseer en toets gevolglik die algemene beginsels van die verhuurder se stilswyende hipoteek, en meer spesifiek die uitbreiding van die hipoteek na bates wat aan derdes behoort, in die lig van artikel 25(1) van die Grondwet. Met inagneming van die beskerming wat derde party se eiendom in terme van onlangse wetgewing geniet, bevind die tesis dat die uitgebreide toepassing van die stilswyende hipoteek nie op ʼn arbitrêre ontneming van derde partye se eiendom neerkom nie omdat korrekte toepassing van die gemeenregtelike beginsels wat vir die uitbreiding voorsiening maak, in kombinasie met die wetgewende uitsluiting van ‟n groot aantal sake wat aan derdes behoort, voldoende beskerming aan die belange van derdes verleen. Die vereistes van artikel 25(1) word dus bevredig.