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repealed and replaced because they are potentially unconstitutional and invalid.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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/5342 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | van der Merwe, Zerlinda |
| Contributors | Van der Walt, A.J., Pienaar, G.J., University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Department of Public Law. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 145 p |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0066 seconds