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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/5326 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Temmers, Zsa-Zsa |
| Contributors | Van der Walt, A.J., University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Department of Private Law. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | x, 240 p. |
| Rights | University of Stellenbosch |
Page generated in 0.0309 seconds