Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: All agricultural subdivisions in the Republic of South Africa are regulated by the
Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970. The declared purpose of the Act is
to prevent the creation of uneconomic farming units and this purpose is achieved
through the requirement that the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(“Minister of Agriculture”) must consent to the proposed subdivision. The Act was
promulgated in the 1970s when the South African landscape was racially divided.
The government of the time used law to provide benefits for the white minority. At
this time the rights of non-whites were restricted. This is the social and political
background of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act. The Act formed part of a
legislative scheme that provided benefits for white farmers. More than a decade after
democratisation and the end of apartheid the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act is
still in operation. The post-apartheid legislature drafted and enacted the Subdivision
of Agricultural Land Act Repeal Act 64 of 1998, but it has not yet been brought into
operation. During 2003 the legislature tabled the Draft Sustainable Utilisation of
Agricultural Resources Bill which contains subdivision provisions that are identical to
the provisions contained in the Subdivision Act. These legislative actions have
created some uncertainty about the state of agricultural subdivisions. In 2008 the
Constitutional Court decided that the Act continues to apply to all agricultural
subdivisions and that this would be the position until the legislature chooses a
definitive course of action.
This constitutional analysis of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act examines the
effect of the Act beyond the pre-constitutional legislative intention and framework
under which it was enacted. If the Act cannot be saved from its apartheid context,
the Repeal Act should become operational. This thesis concludes that the necessary
and legitimate purpose of the Act, namely the regulation of subdivision of agricultural
land, can be removed from its pre-constitutional setting in the apartheid era and may
continue to justify the legitimate regulation of subdivision of land. Comparative
sources, namely the United States of America, specifically the states of Oregon and Hawaii, Western Australia and the province of British Columbia, Canada indicate that
the regulation of agricultural subdivisions is a valid means of protecting agricultural
land.
If the Act can continue to exist without its legacy of apartheid and still serves a
legitimate and necessary purpose it will have to be constitutionally compliant. The
purpose of the Act and the means used to realise it were tested against the Bill of
Rights. The effect that the regulation has particularly on ownership entitlements was
examined against section 25(1) of the 1996 Constitution. Similarly, the
consequences of the regulation with regard to other rights in the Bill of Rights were
investigated. The conclusion was that where the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act
is used for its purpose of preventing the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land,
in the national interest, it is a legitimate land-use regulation that can continue to
justifiably operate in a constitutional dispensation. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Alle onderverdelings van landbougrond in die Republiek van Suid-Afrika word
gereguleer deur die Wet op die Onderverdeling van Landbougrond 70 van 1970. Die
verklaarde doel van die Wet is om die totstandkoming van onekonomiese landboueenhede
te voorkom, en hierdie doel word bereik deurdat die Minister van Landbou,
Bosbou en Visserye (“Minister van Landbou”) toestemming moet verleen vir die
voorgestelde onderverdeling van landbougrond. Die Wet is in die 1970s
gepromulgeer toe grond in Suid-Afrika in terme van ras verdeel was. Die destydse
apartheidsregering het die regstelsel gebruik om voordele vir die blanke
minderheidsgroep te bewerkstellig, terwyl die regte van nie-blankes ingeperk was.
Dit is die sosiale en politieke agtergrond waarteen die Wet op die Onderverdeling
van Landbougrond tot stand gekom het. Die Wet was deel van ‘n wetgewende
raamwerk waarbinne voordele vir blanke boere geskep is. Meer as ‘n dekade na
apartheid en die totstandkoming van ‘n demokratiese Suid-Afrika is die Wet op die
Onderverdeling van Landbougrond steeds in werking. Die post-apartheid wetgewer
het die Wet op die Herroepping van die Wet op die Onderverdeling van
Landbougrond 64 van 1998 gepromulgeer, maar nog nie in werking gestel nie.
Gedurende 2003 het die wetgewer die “Draft Sustainable Utilisation of Agricultural
Resources Bill”, wat onderafdelings soortgelyk aan die bepalings in die Wet op die
Onderverdeling van Landbougrond bevat, gepromulgeer. Bogenoemde stappe het
onsekerheid geskep ten opsigte van die stand van onderverdeling van
landbougrond. In 2008 het die Konstitusionele Hof beslis dat die Wet op die
Onderverdeling van Landbougrond sal voortgaan om die onderverdeling van
landbougrond te reguleer totdat die wetgewer uitsluitsel oor die aangeleentheid
verskaf.
Die doel van die tesis is om die uitwerking van die Wet op die Onderverdeling van
Landbougrond te analiseer as deel van die huidige grondwetlike bedeling, aangesien
dit geskep is tydens die apartheidsera. Indien die Wet nie van sy apartheidskonteks
geskei of gered kan word nie sal die Herroepping Wet in werking gestel moet word. Die tesis kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat die doel van die Wet, naamlik die regulering
van die onderverdeling van landbougrond, van die voor-konstitusionele agtergrond in
die apartheidsera geskei kan word en dat dit kan voortgaan om die wettige
regulering van onderverdeling van landbougrond te regverdig. Regsvergelykende
bronne, naamlik die Verenigde State van Amerika, veral die state van Oregon en
Hawaii, Wes Australië en Brits-Columbië, ‘n provinsie van Kanada, dui aan dat die
regulasie van die onderverdeling van landbougrond ‘n regsgeldige metode is om
landbougrond te beskerm. Die doel van die Wet en die metodes wat gebruik word
om hierdie doel te laat realiseer is getoets teen die Handves van Menseregte. Die
uitwerking van die regulasie op die inhoudsbevoegdhede van die eienaar is spesifiek
geëvalueer teen artikel 25(1) van die 1996 Grondwet, maar die gevolge van die
regulasie is ook getoets teen ander regte in die Handves van Menseregte. Die
gevolgtrekking was dat waar die Wet op die Onderverdeling van Landbougrond
gebruik word met die doel om onekonomiese onderverdeling van landbougrond te
verhoed in die nasionale belang, dit ‘n legitieme regulasie van grondgebruik is
waarvan die gebruik steeds regverdigbaar is in ‘n grondwetlike bedeling.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/5444 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Frantz, Gino |
| Contributors | van der Walt, A.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 | xi, 172 p. |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0031 seconds