Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The 1996 Constitution provides in s 25(7) that individuals and communities who had been dispossessed of rights in land after 19 June 1913, as a result of past discriminatory laws, may claim restitution or equitable redress. The Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 reiterates the 1913 cut-off date for restitution claims. The cut-off date appears to preclude pre-1913 land dispossessions. Various reasons are cited for this date, the most obvious being that it reflects the date on which the Black Land Act came into effect. The Richtersveld and Popela decisions of the lower courts appear to confirm the view that historically based land claims for dispossessions that occurred prior to 1913 are excluded from the restitution process. In Australia and Canada restitution orders have been made possible by the judicially crafted doctrine of aboriginal land rights. However, historical restitution claims based on this doctrine are constrained by the assumption that the Crown, in establishing title during colonisation, extinguished all existing titles to land. This would have meant that the indigenous proprietary systems would have been lost irrevocably through colonisation. In seeking to overcome the sovereignty issue, Australian and Canadian courts have distinguished between the loss of sovereignty and the loss of title to land. In this way, the sovereignty of the Crown is left intact while restitution orders are rendered possible. South African courts do not have to grapple with the sovereignty issue since post-apartheid legislation authorises the land restitution process. The appeal decisions in Richtersveld and Popela recognised that some use rights survived the colonial dispossession of ownership. This surviving right was later the subject of a second dispossession under apartheid. By using this construction, which is not unlike the logic of the doctrine of aboriginal title in fragmenting proprietary interests, the second dispossession could then be said to meet the 1913 cut-off date, so that all historically based land claims are not necessarily excluded by the 1913 cut-off date. However, it is still possible that some pre-1913 dispossessions could not be brought under the umbrella of the Richtersveld and Popela construction, and the question whether historically based restitution claims are possible despite the 1913 cut-off date will resurface, especially if the claimants are not accommodated in the government’s land redistribution programme / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die 1996 Grondwet bepaal in a 25(7) dat individue en gemeenskappe wat na 19 Junie 1913 van ‘n reg in grond ontneem is, as gevolg van rasgebaseerde wetgewing en praktyke, geregtig is om herstel van sodanige regte of gelykwaardige vergoeding te eis. Die Wet op Herstel van Grondregte 22 van 1994herhaal die 1913-afsnydatum vir grondeise. Dit lyk dus asof die afsnydatum die ontneming van grond voor 1913 uitsluit. Verskeie redes word vir hierdie datum aangevoer, waarvan die bekendste is dat dit die datum is waarop die Swart Grond Wet in werking getree het. Dit beslissing van die laer howe in beide die Richtersveld- en die Popela-beslissings bevestig blykbaar dat ontneming van grond of regte in grond voor 1913 van die restitusie-proses uitgesluit word. In Australië en Kanada is restitusiebevele moontlik gemaak deur die leerstuk van inheemse grondregte. Historiese restitusie-eise in hierdie jurisdiksies word egter aan bande gelê deur die veronderstelling dat die Kroon, deur die vestiging van titel gedurende kolonialisering, alle vorige titels op die grond uitgewis het. Dit sou beteken dat die inheemsregtelike grondregsisteme onherroeplik verlore geraak het deur kolonialisering. Ten einde die soewereiniteitsprobleem te oorkom het die Australiese en Kanadese howe onderskei tussen die verlies van soewereiniteit en die verlies van titel tot die grond. Op hierdie wyse word die soewereiniteit van die Kroon onaangeraak gelaat terwyl restitusiebevele steeds ‘n moontlikheid is. Suid-Afrikaanse howe het nie nodig gehad om die soewereiniteitskwessie aan te spreek nie omdat post-apartheid wetgewing die herstel van grondregte magtig. Die appélbeslissings in Richtersveld en Popela erken dat sekere gebruiksregte die koloniale ontneming van eiendom oorleef het. Die oorblywende gebruiksregte is later ‘n tweede keer ontneem as gevolg van apartheid. Deur gebruikmaking van hierdie konstruksie, wat dieselfde logika volg as die leerstuk van inheemsregtelike regte en berus op fragmentasie van eiendomsaansprake, kan gesê word dat die tweede ontneming van grond wel binne die 1913-afsnydatum val. Gevolglik sal alle historiese restitusie-eise nie noodwendig deur die 1913- afsnydatum uitgesluit word nie. Dit is steeds moontlik dat sommige pre-1913 ontnemings nooit onder die vaandel van die Richtersveld- en Popela-beslissings gebring sal kan word nie, en die vraag of histories gebaseerde eise moontlik is ongeag die 1913-afsnydatum sal daarom weer opduik, veral indien die grondeisers nie geakkommodeer word in die grondherverdelingsprogram van die staat nie.

This paper undertakes an indepth study of the Kipi land restitution claim. This study focuses on the nature of the settlement achieved in the case ofthe Kipi land claim and covers the period 1993 to 1999. It compares the Cato Manor reconstruction and development process and the Kipi land restoration and housing process within the Durban Metropolitan's Inner West Council area. The study does this by tracing the history of the Kipi community's relationship with the land, documenting the communities resistance of the removal in terms of the Group Areas Act and presenting a critical examination of the communities efforts to reclaim and develop their land. The study uses the case ~tudy method to analyse the principles embedded in this settlement and attempts to draw on these to inform possible policy recommendations in respect of other urban land claims. The central thesis of this dissertation argues that the quality of restitution delivery is directly affected by the degree to which it is located within local development coordination and management institutions and structures. In the Kipi claim the Council chose negotiation rather than the apartheid planning principles of prescription and coercion. This resulted in a integration of the housing and restitution processes. It is in this light that the role of the land claims working group which was set up by the Commission and the Durban Metro Inner West local council is evaluated. While in the Cato Manor case the Council chose to follow the legal route and opposed restoration in terms of section 34 of the Restitution ofLand Rights Act. The consequences of following the legal route has been that the housing and land restitution processes have been compartmentalised. It is argued that post apartheid planning is indeed a complex process that needs to engage creatively and flexibly with issues of over due social justice and the current development needs of the urban poor. It is important that in reconstructing the urban landscape that communities are involved in planning models that focus on bottom up processes for successful outcomes. / Thesis (M.Dev.Studies)-University of Natal, Durban, 2003.

The purpose of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 is to provide for the restitution of rights in land to persons or communities dispossessed of such rights after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices. The restitution of a right in land can include the restoration of a right in land. The aim of this dissertation is to investigate the requirement of feasibility in restoring land rights and in particular the role of feasibility studies and the courts’ interpretation of the feasibility requirement in restoring such rights. The methodology used includes a review of literature, legislation and policies on land restitution and an analysis of case law. The outcome of the research indicates that while actual restoration ought to take preference in all instances, it may only be granted once all the relevant circumstances and factors have been considered. In certain circumstances it may not be feasible to restore land rights. / Private Law / LL. M. (Property Law)

The VAT consequences of land expropriations appear to be a grey area with no definitive answer as to which expropriations are zero rated or vatable at 14%. While it is generally understood that the government performs expropriations, there are many departments within the government that have authority to perform these expropriations independently. Based on section 11(1)(s) and (t) of the VAT Act, depending on which department performs the expropriation and under which Act the expropriations are made it will be determined whether the expropriation will attract VAT at 14% or 0%. However, the detail contained in section 11(1)(s) and (t) does not lend itself to a clear cut explanation as to the motive behind why some expropriations are zero rated and others that are fundamentally similar are vatable at 14%. This study performs a comparison of expropriations under the Housing Act, Restitution of Land Rights Act and the Provision of Land and Assistance Act and their VAT consequences. The purpose of this study is to try and find the driving factor that determines the VAT consequences of the different expropriations and to determine whether there is a commonality. The study performs an analysis of the expropriating authorities of the different Acts mentioned above and determines whether their VAT vendor status has an influence as to whether VAT is levied at 0% or 14% or whether the entire transaction is an exempt supply. The conclusion reached is that the most appropriate course of action would be to apply a blanket rule of zero rating the supply. This would reduce confusion and uncertainty relating to the VAT consequences and would also assist all parties concerned to have the same expectation. It is important that the South African Revenue Service provides some guidelines to assist in understanding the VAT consequences of expropriations in South Africa, as they will be required to enforce the legislation. AFRIKAANS : Die BTW-gevolge van grondonteienings blyk ‘n grys gebied te wees met geen duidelike antwoorde wanneer dit kom by watter van hierdie onteienings onderhewig is aan nulkoers en watter onteienings belasbaar is teen 14% nie. Alhoewel die algemene gevoel is dat die regering onteienings uitvoer, is daar wel departemente binne die regering wat die volmag het om hierdie onteienings onafhanklik toe te pas. Op grond van artikel 11(1)(e) en (t) van die BTW-wet, sal vasgestel word watter onteienings aan 14% of nulkoers BTW onderhewig is deur te kyk na watter departement die onteienings uitvoer en onder watter wet die onteienings gemaak is. Die detail wat in artikel 11(1)(e) en (t) vervat word is nie heeltemal duidelik oor hoekom sekere onteienings aan nulkoers onderhewig is en ander, wat fundamenteel dieselfde is, belasbaar is teen 14% nie. ʼn Vergelyking van onteienings wat onder die Wet op Behuising, Wet op Herstel van Grondregte en die Wet op die Beskikbaarstelling van Grond en Bystand plaasvind, asook die BTW-gevolge van elke wet, word deur middel van hierdie studie gemaak. Die doel van hierdie studie is om te bepaal watter faktore die BTW-gevolge van die verskillende onteienings bepaal, en of die faktore iets in gemeen het. Die studie analiseer die onteieningsgesag wat by die verskillende wette soos hierbo genoem ter sprake is en bepaal of die BTW-ondernemer-status ‘n invloed het op of 1) BTW teen nulkoers of 14% toegedien word en of 2) die hele transaksie ‘n nie-belasbare lewering is. Die gevolgtrekking wat bereik word is dat die mees geskikte plan van aksie sal wees om alle lewerings onderhewig te maak aan ‘n nulkoers. Dit sal verwarring en onsekerheid met betrekking tot die BTW-gevolge verminder en verseker dat alle betrokke partye dieselfde verwagting sal hê. Dit is belangrik dat die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens riglyne sal verskaf wat kan help om die BTW-gevolge van onteienings in Suid-Afrika verstaanbaar te maak, aangesien daar in elk geval van die regering vereis word om wetgewing af te dwing. / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Taxation / unrestricted