Browsing by Author "Van der Merwe, Zerlinda"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Constitutionality of the rules governing sectional title schemes
    (Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch, 2010-12) Van der Merwe, Zerlinda; Van der Walt, A. J.; Pienaar, G. J.; University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Department of Public Law.
    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as reading-up, reading-down, reading-in or severance, these impermissible rules will need to be substituted, amended or repealed and replaced because they are potentially unconstitutional and invalid.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.