Thesis (LLD (Public Law))—University of Stellenbosch, 2003. / Since the advent of constitutional democracy in 1994 South African courts have been faced with new interpretive imperatives.

The word expropriation is used in South Africa to describe the process whereby a public authority or institution takes property from a private person for public purposes against payment of compensation. The current Act regulating expropriations in South Africa is known as the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. However, it has three primary inconsistencies with the Constitution. Firstly it predates the Constitution - therefore, it does not infuse the values of equality, human dignity and the achievement of freedom. Secondly it is not consistent with comparable modem statutes elsewhere in the world. The last issue is that this Act is inconsistent with the Constitution in the sense that the Act only provides for expropriation for public purposes and the Constitution provides for expropriation in the public interest as well as for a public purpose. For these reasons it is crucial to establish a new legislative framework. In an attempt to rectify the above difficulties, an expropriation policy and a draft Bill were introduced. The primary purpose of the Bill is to harmonise the considerable amount of legislation in South Africa on the subject of expropriation, and to fill the gaps of the current Act. However, the new proposed Bill was referred back to cabinet as it had various difficulties. According to newspaper commentators, one of these reasons was that market value would not be used when determining the amount of compensation. This is not true, as market value is one of the listed factors in section 25(3) of the Constitution, and it is provided for in the Bill. Another reason was that the role of the courts will also be restricted in the new Bill. Parties will no longer be able to refer disputes concerning the amount of compensation to court. Once again this is not true, the courts role is only restricted in the sense that it would no be able to determine the amount of compensation as provided for in the Constitution, but will only be allowed to approve or decline the amount the Minister determined. This is one of the aspects that may be debatable constitutionally. After an in-depth study of the proposed Bill, the author came to the conclusion that there are actually only three aspects that might be unconstitutional namely; the definition of public interest which is to be included that widens the capacity to expropriate; departure from the notice procedure; and the fact that the courts may no longer determine the amount of compensation, but only approve or decline. Expropriation is one of the most important tools to speed up land reform in South Africa, and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the procedure must take place in a fair, equitable and constitutional manner. The purpose of this study will be to identify the aspects which result in expropriations that is not done on this basis, to scrutinize them and to make recommendations to these aspects. / Thesis (LL.M. (Law)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

The word expropriation is used in South Africa to describe the process whereby a public authority or institution takes property from a private person for public purposes against payment of compensation. The current Act regulating expropriations in South Africa is known as the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. However, it has three primary inconsistencies with the Constitution. Firstly it predates the Constitution - therefore, it does not infuse the values of equality, human dignity and the achievement of freedom. Secondly it is not consistent with comparable modem statutes elsewhere in the world. The last issue is that this Act is inconsistent with the Constitution in the sense that the Act only provides for expropriation for public purposes and the Constitution provides for expropriation in the public interest as well as for a public purpose. For these reasons it is crucial to establish a new legislative framework. In an attempt to rectify the above difficulties, an expropriation policy and a draft Bill were introduced. The primary purpose of the Bill is to harmonise the considerable amount of legislation in South Africa on the subject of expropriation, and to fill the gaps of the current Act. However, the new proposed Bill was referred back to cabinet as it had various difficulties. According to newspaper commentators, one of these reasons was that market value would not be used when determining the amount of compensation. This is not true, as market value is one of the listed factors in section 25(3) of the Constitution, and it is provided for in the Bill. Another reason was that the role of the courts will also be restricted in the new Bill. Parties will no longer be able to refer disputes concerning the amount of compensation to court. Once again this is not true, the courts role is only restricted in the sense that it would no be able to determine the amount of compensation as provided for in the Constitution, but will only be allowed to approve or decline the amount the Minister determined. This is one of the aspects that may be debatable constitutionally. After an in-depth study of the proposed Bill, the author came to the conclusion that there are actually only three aspects that might be unconstitutional namely; the definition of public interest which is to be included that widens the capacity to expropriate; departure from the notice procedure; and the fact that the courts may no longer determine the amount of compensation, but only approve or decline. Expropriation is one of the most important tools to speed up land reform in South Africa, and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the procedure must take place in a fair, equitable and constitutional manner. The purpose of this study will be to identify the aspects which result in expropriations that is not done on this basis, to scrutinize them and to make recommendations to these aspects. / Thesis (LL.M. (Law)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

The concept "beneficial use" plays a pivotal role in South African water law reform. It forms the foundation of the mechanism to make water use rights available for the reform of the allocation of water use entitlements. The mechanism involves that water use rights that were unexercised in the two years before the promulgation of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 are not defined as existing lawful water uses. Where the concept "beneficial use" is utilised to cancel unexercised water use rights, it can cause potential hardship. Some people whose rights have been cancelled believe that they should be able to rely on the property clause in section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 to either have the legislation declared unconstitutional or to demand compensation. Section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property and states that property may only be expropriated for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to compensation. Section 25(4) states, however, that the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources. It is clear from this that reforms to bring about access to water are allowed by the property clause. One of the main questions discussed in this thesis was whether section 32 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 that made more water available for distribution for reform purposes by cancelling unexercised water user rights, leads to an arbitrary deprivation or an expropriation of property. It should be noted that section 32 of the National Water Act did not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, as sufficient reason exists for water law reform. A possible constitutional challenge based on the lack of due process of law because of the retrospective operation of the section may possibly be averted because of the existence of section 33 of the National Water Act. Section 33 of the Act mitigates hardship by allowing unexercised water uses to be declared existing lawful water uses in certain circumstances where a good reason for the non–exercise of the water use right existed. Even in cases where section 33 does not prevent section 32 from being regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of property because there still was not a proper procedure, the government will probably be able to show that the limitation in section 32 is, in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution of 1996, reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. Despite the fact that section 25(1) prohibits arbitrary deprivations, it does not prohibit the government from regulating competing rights to use water even though some people may be negatively affected by the regulation. Because the Minister merely acts as public trustee of the nation's water resources on behalf of the national government in terms section 3(1) of the National Water Act, it cannot be claimed that the government acquired the cancelled water use rights. A claim that compensation should be paid for an expropriation of property will therefore not succeed. Compensation is only payable in terms of section 22(6) and section 22(7) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 for a loss of existing water entitlements, such as existing lawful water uses or existing licences. A court should thus consider interpreting section 25 by providing for compensation where an individual was unfairly burdened and was therefore denied the protection of the equality clause in section 9 of the Constitution when his unexercised water use rights were cancelled by section 32. The concept "beneficial use" currently restricts the content of the water use entitlement existing in terms of section 4 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The loss of the entitlement when inter alia a licence for an existing lawful water use is refused, is not protected by the payment of compensation when water is used in an unfair or disproportionate manner, because such utilisation would not be regarded to be beneficial use. It became apparent that in terms of the current water law dispensation in South Africa, the possibility of compensation for an amendment of a water use licence and the refusal of a licence for an existing lawful water use implies that a water use entitlement is a right in property. The fact that section 22(7) of the National Water Act states that the amount of the compensation must be determined in accordance with section 25(3) of the Constitution implies that the legislature also recognises that a water use entitlement is constitutional property. Section 22(7) of the National Water Act underlines the basic premises of the National Water Act by subjecting the amount of the compensation that is payable to the same limitations that restrict the entitlement to use the water. The stipulations of section 22(7) draw the attention to the fact that the exercise of both existing lawful water uses and water use licences as rights in property is subject to basic principles of the National Water Act such as the Reserve and the concepts "public trusteeship" and "beneficial use" of the water resources. The fact that compensation is only payable when there has been severe prejudice to the economic viability of an undertaking implies that water use entitlements have to be exercised at the time of the application for the compensation to be payable. The concept "beneficial use" – in the sense that a water use must not be wasteful or polluting and in the sense that only water use entitlements that are being exercised are protected – thus restricts the water use entitlement as a property right. During the research, American and Australian water law reform and their interpretation of their property clauses were compared to water law reform in South Africa and the South African property clause. Furthermore, Australian policy to encourage more beneficial water use by the trade in water entitlements or allocations, was also discussed. South Africans will likely in future be encouraged to trade in water use entitlements or allocations. The objective with allowing the trade in water use entitlements or allocations is to encourage people to rather use water for uses with a high value instead of uses with a lower value. In this way the concept "beneficial use" may be broadened to include water allocation or entitlement trading. However, it was argued that a disproportionate impact on third parties would mean that water allocation or entitlement trading would in some cases not be regarded as beneficial use anymore. / Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The concept "beneficial use" plays a pivotal role in South African water law reform. It forms the foundation of the mechanism to make water use rights available for the reform of the allocation of water use entitlements. The mechanism involves that water use rights that were unexercised in the two years before the promulgation of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 are not defined as existing lawful water uses. Where the concept "beneficial use" is utilised to cancel unexercised water use rights, it can cause potential hardship. Some people whose rights have been cancelled believe that they should be able to rely on the property clause in section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 to either have the legislation declared unconstitutional or to demand compensation. Section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property and states that property may only be expropriated for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to compensation. Section 25(4) states, however, that the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources. It is clear from this that reforms to bring about access to water are allowed by the property clause. One of the main questions discussed in this thesis was whether section 32 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 that made more water available for distribution for reform purposes by cancelling unexercised water user rights, leads to an arbitrary deprivation or an expropriation of property. It should be noted that section 32 of the National Water Act did not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, as sufficient reason exists for water law reform. A possible constitutional challenge based on the lack of due process of law because of the retrospective operation of the section may possibly be averted because of the existence of section 33 of the National Water Act. Section 33 of the Act mitigates hardship by allowing unexercised water uses to be declared existing lawful water uses in certain circumstances where a good reason for the non–exercise of the water use right existed. Even in cases where section 33 does not prevent section 32 from being regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of property because there still was not a proper procedure, the government will probably be able to show that the limitation in section 32 is, in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution of 1996, reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. Despite the fact that section 25(1) prohibits arbitrary deprivations, it does not prohibit the government from regulating competing rights to use water even though some people may be negatively affected by the regulation. Because the Minister merely acts as public trustee of the nation's water resources on behalf of the national government in terms section 3(1) of the National Water Act, it cannot be claimed that the government acquired the cancelled water use rights. A claim that compensation should be paid for an expropriation of property will therefore not succeed. Compensation is only payable in terms of section 22(6) and section 22(7) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 for a loss of existing water entitlements, such as existing lawful water uses or existing licences. A court should thus consider interpreting section 25 by providing for compensation where an individual was unfairly burdened and was therefore denied the protection of the equality clause in section 9 of the Constitution when his unexercised water use rights were cancelled by section 32. The concept "beneficial use" currently restricts the content of the water use entitlement existing in terms of section 4 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The loss of the entitlement when inter alia a licence for an existing lawful water use is refused, is not protected by the payment of compensation when water is used in an unfair or disproportionate manner, because such utilisation would not be regarded to be beneficial use. It became apparent that in terms of the current water law dispensation in South Africa, the possibility of compensation for an amendment of a water use licence and the refusal of a licence for an existing lawful water use implies that a water use entitlement is a right in property. The fact that section 22(7) of the National Water Act states that the amount of the compensation must be determined in accordance with section 25(3) of the Constitution implies that the legislature also recognises that a water use entitlement is constitutional property. Section 22(7) of the National Water Act underlines the basic premises of the National Water Act by subjecting the amount of the compensation that is payable to the same limitations that restrict the entitlement to use the water. The stipulations of section 22(7) draw the attention to the fact that the exercise of both existing lawful water uses and water use licences as rights in property is subject to basic principles of the National Water Act such as the Reserve and the concepts "public trusteeship" and "beneficial use" of the water resources. The fact that compensation is only payable when there has been severe prejudice to the economic viability of an undertaking implies that water use entitlements have to be exercised at the time of the application for the compensation to be payable. The concept "beneficial use" – in the sense that a water use must not be wasteful or polluting and in the sense that only water use entitlements that are being exercised are protected – thus restricts the water use entitlement as a property right. During the research, American and Australian water law reform and their interpretation of their property clauses were compared to water law reform in South Africa and the South African property clause. Furthermore, Australian policy to encourage more beneficial water use by the trade in water entitlements or allocations, was also discussed. South Africans will likely in future be encouraged to trade in water use entitlements or allocations. The objective with allowing the trade in water use entitlements or allocations is to encourage people to rather use water for uses with a high value instead of uses with a lower value. In this way the concept "beneficial use" may be broadened to include water allocation or entitlement trading. However, it was argued that a disproportionate impact on third parties would mean that water allocation or entitlement trading would in some cases not be regarded as beneficial use anymore. / Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.