Department of Private Law

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/130

Browse

Browsing Department of Private Law by Author "Boggenpoel, Z. T."

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The continued relevance of the mandament van spolie : recent developments relating to dispossession and eviction
    (University of Pretoria, 2013) Boggenpoel, Z. T.; Pienaar, Juanita
    Ten spyte daarvan dat artikel 26(3) van die Grondwet die uitsetting van persone in die afwesigheid van ’n hofbevel verbied, het drie onlangse hofsake aangedui dat sulke uitsettings steeds plaasvind. Hoewel verskeie opsies vir die applikante (staatsorgane) beskikbaar was om persone uit geboue en skuilings te verwyder, (nood-, gesondheids- en rampmaatreëls en die Uitsettingswet 19 van 1998), is uitsetting in die gevalle onder bespreking effektiewelik bewerk deur spoliasie – van die gebou of skuiling as ’n geheel of van elemente wat integraal tot die skuiling was (ontneming van dakplate). Om besitsherstel te bewerkstellig (en uitsetting om te keer), is die mandament van spolie deur die respondente geopper. Hoewel die feite en omstandighede soortgelyk (maar nie identies nie) was, is die uitsprake taamlik uiteenlopend. In twee van die drie sake was die mandament onsuksesvol en is ’n grondwetlike besitsherstelremedie ontwikkel. In die derde geval was die mandament inderdaad suksesvol, hoewel die dakplate met plaasvervangende materiaal herstel moes word. Die bydrae ontleed die drie sake in die lig van (a) die basiese beginsels van die mandament en die redes vir die remedie in die algemeen; en (b) die noodsaaklikheid (al dan nie) om die remedie te ontwikkel. Dit wil voorkom of die mandament toenemend aangewend word om ander oogmerke, byvoorbeeld grondwetlike beskerming teen uitsetting, te bereik. Dit is problematies in die lig daarvan dat die mandament nooit beoog het om substantiewe regte of, soos in hierdie gevalle, veilige grondbeheer (“secure tenure”) daar te stel nie. Wat egter duidelik na vore kom, is dat (a) die Uitsettingswet nie persone beskerm wat in dieselfde posisie as die respondente is nie omdat die Wet te reaktief is; en (b) dat die mandament steeds relevansie het deurdat alle rolspelers gedwing om aan ʼn formele proses wat by ʼn openbare forum afspeel, deel te neem. Solank as wat die leemtes in die Uitsettingswet voortbestaan, is die mandament relevant, nie net as besitsherstelremedie nie, maar ook as meganisme om die belange van kwesbares – veral by onwettige uitsetting – uit te lig.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Creating a servitude to solve an encroachment dispute : a solution or creating another problem?
    (Academy of Science of South Africa, 2013) Boggenpoel, Z. T.
    The main focus of this note is the case of Roseveare v Katmer, Katmer v Roseveare 2013 ZAGPJHC 18, which provides an interesting (though possibly constitutionally problematic) perspective to the encroachment problem. The decision in this case has opened the door for courts to create servitudes in instances where encroachments are left intact based on policy reasons. Concerning these policy reasons, the note investigates the reasonableness standard as it was applied in the case. It is argued that it is important to differentiate between the applications of reasonableness in encroachment cases and alleged nuisance disputes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Does method really matter? Reconsidering the role of common-law remedies in the eviction paradigm
    (Juta Law Publishing, 2014-01) Boggenpoel, Z. T.
    The new constitutional dispensation brought with it (inevitably) large scale deviations in the way remedies in the context of evictions are applied in modern South African law. This article examines how the sources of law relate to one another in the search for suitable remedies for infringement of constitutional rights. Specifically in eviction law, it is clear that the relationship between the sources of law is uncertain for purposes of finding a remedy in the case of infringements of section 26(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 ("the Constitution"). The evictee arguably has the possibility of two coinciding remedies, namely the mandament van spolie and a constitutional remedy under section 26(3). The article shows that both these remedies would in principle provide the same type of remedial content in the sense of ensuring that repossession takes place (thereby reversing the illegal eviction) so that the occupiers are (temporarily) placed in the position they were in prior to the illegal eviction (or dispossession) and the merits of the dispute can be decided in a subsequent eviction application. Nonetheless, it is argued that in order to ensure the types of decisions that give full effect to the rights as envisaged by the Constitution, courts should not be too quick to discard of the possibility that the common-law remedy could be invoked in the context of eviction. If the need arises to reconsider the common-law remedies in light of the Constitution (and to develop them in line with the Constitution) courts are not able to shy away from their obligation in terms of section 39(2).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Questioning the use of the Mandament van Spolie in Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and Security 2014 5 SA 112 (CC)
    (North-West University, Faculty of Law, 2015) Boggenpoel, Z. T.
    This cursory note reflects on the outcome of the Constitutional Court judgment of Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and Security. The decision presented the Court with the opportunity to consider what happens to existing common law remedies in light of legislation that has been enacted to regulate a specific area of the law. The Constitutional Court held that the Traffic Act did not place an absolute prohibition on the possession of tampered vehicles and therefore the Court granted the spoliation remedy. The Court’s conclusion that the mandament van spolie is in principle available in these instances, creates the impression that the common law remedy would be appropriate even though the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) contains a remedy to claim the property back. This note argues that such a conclusion is problematic. If the CPA has a remedy to restore possession, that option should first be exhausted. In this regard, it is necessary to regulate the choice of remedy if the common law and the legislation provide a remedy to vindicate the violations of rights. Furthermore, in instances where legislation has been enacted to regulate a specific area of the law (or to give effect to a constitutional provision) the mandament van spolie should in principle not be available. Finally, this note concludes that in instances where the Traffic Act prohibits possession of certain vehicles, it should not be possible to use the mandament van spolie to by-pass the legislation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Re-evaluating the court system in PIE eviction cases
    (Juta Law, 2018) Cloete, Clireesh; Boggenpoel, Z. T.
    The nexus between the court system (meaning in this note the civil-procedure rules and conventions according to which a matter is litigated) and the application of ss 4(1) and 4(7) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (‘PIE’) is the focus of this note.