An analysis of the Separation of Powers Doctrine in Housing Rights Remedies Jurisprudence

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorSlade, Bradley V.en_ZA
dc.contributor.advisorKok, Antonen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorWeideman, Andrea Joyen_ZA
dc.contributor.otherStellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-08T14:47:53Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-29T09:38:09Z
dc.date.available2022-03-08T14:47:53Z
dc.date.available2022-04-29T09:38:09Z
dc.date.issued2022-03
dc.descriptionThesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2022.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractENGLISH ABSTRACT: The remedy issued by the Constitutional Court in Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others 2000 11 BCLR 1169 (CC), has been criticized for being overly deferential. In spite of the courts’ wide remedial powers, it made an order lacking specificity about the measures required to remedy the housing rights infringement in that case, overly deferring its remedial role to the executive and legislative branches of government. The basis of the court’s overly deferential approach was the separation of powers doctrine. Therefore, the question that this study aims to address is how the separation of powers doctrine impacts on the courts’ provision of remedies in South African housing rights remedies jurisprudence. To answer this question, this study contains an analysis of the separation of powers doctrine in the abstract and as understood in the South African context, as well as an analysis of the remedies issued by the courts in housing rights cases, with a specific focus on the remedies issued by the Constitutional Court (hereafter “the Court”). This study attempts to illustrate that the foundation for the Court’s strict understanding of the separation of powers doctrine was laid during the debate about the inclusion of socio-economic rights in the 1996 Constitution. During this debate, separation of powers concerns, judicial capacity, and judicial legitimacy, were raised by those against the inclusion of socio-economic rights in the 1996 Constitution. In this study it was found that the same separation of powers concerns raised during this debate are ritually invoked by the Court in housing rights cases during the remedy stage of adjudication. It is against this backdrop that the Court has traditionally adopted a deferential approach in relation to the provision of remedies in housing rights cases. However, despite the implications of the Court’s traditionally deferential approach, the Court post-Grootboom has shifted away from this approach. While the Court’s postGrootboom approach was necessary considering the failed interaction between a deferential Court and an incompetent government, and its implication for the victims of housing rights violations, it potentially raises separation of powers concerns. Despite these separation of powers concerns, it is argued in this thesis that the Court’s post-Grootboom approach is justified on the basis of a more contemporary understanding of the separation of powers doctrine. While the Court’s post-Grootboom approach was a step in the right direction, the transformative — coupled with the supreme — nature of the 1996 Constitution requires something more, a reconceptualization of the separation of powers doctrine. The reconceptualised doctrine that I have in mind encapsulates a separation of powers that is understood and applied by the Court with the achievement of the transformative aims of the 1996 Constitution in mind.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die remedie uitgereik die Konstitusionele Hof in Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others 2000 11 BCLR 1169 (CC), is al gekritiseer omdat dit oordrywend eerbiedig is. Ten spyte van die howe se wye remediërende magte reik die hof ‘n orde uit wat ‘n te kort aan spesifisiteit gehad het oor die nodige stappe om die behuisingsregtelike krenking in daardie saak te remedieer, met die gevolg dat die remediërende rol van die hof oorgegee is aan die uitvoerende en wetgewende takke van die regering. Die basis van die hof se oormatige eerbiedige benadering was die leerstuk van die skeiding van magte. Dus word daar in hierdie studie gevra hoe die leerstuk van die skeiding van magte die howe se uitreiking van remedies in die Suid-Afrikaanse behuising-remedies regsleer beïnvloed. Om die vraag te beantwoord bevat hierdie studie ‘n analise van die leerstuk van die skeiding van magte in die abstrak en in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks, asook ‘n analise van die remedies uitgereik deur die howe se behuisingsreg sake, met ‘n besondere fokus op die remedies uitgereik deur die Konstitusionele Hof (hierna “die Hof”). Hierdie studie beoog om te illustreer dat die grondslag van die Hof se strikte begrip van die skeiding-van-magte leerstuk gelê is en tye van die debat rondom die insluiting van sosioëkonomiese regte in die 1996 Grondwet. Gedurende hierdie debat is bekommernisse oor die skeiding van magte, geregtelike kapasiteit, en geregtelike legitimiteit geopper deur diegene wat teen die insluiting van sosioëkonomiese regte in die 1996 Grondwet was. In hierdie studie is bevind dat die selfde bekommernisse oor die skeiding van magte gedurende hierdie debat ritueel opgeroep word deur die Hof in behuisingsregsake gedurende die remedie-fase van beregting. Dit is teen hierdie agtergrond dat die Hof tradisioneel ‘n eerbiedige benadering ten opsigte van die uitreiking van remedies in behuisingsregsake aanneem. Maar, ten spyte van die Hof se tradisionele eerbiedige benadering, het die hof post-Grootboom wegbeweeg van hierdie benadering. Terwyl die Hof se post-Grootboom benadering nodig was omdat die wisselwerking tussen die eerbiedige hof en ‘n onbevoegde regering misluk het vir die slagoffers van behuisingsregkrenkings, bring dit bekommernisse oor die skeiding van magte te vore. Ten spyte van die skeiding van magte bekommernisse word daar in hierdie verhandeling geargumenteer dat die Hof se post-Grootboom benadering geregverdig kan word op die basis van ‘n meer kontemporêre begrip van die skeiding van magte leerstuk. Terwyl die Hof se post-Grootboom benadering ‘n stap in die regte rigting was, verlang die transformatiewe en oppergesagtelike aard van die 1996 Grondwet iets meer – ‘n herkonseptualisering van die skeiding van magte leerstuk. Die herkonseptualisering van die leerstuk wat ek in gedagte het behels ‘n skeiding van magte wat verstaan en toegepas word deur die hof met die nastrewing van die transformatiewe oogmerke van die 1996 Grondwet in gedagte hou.af_ZA
dc.description.versionMastersen_ZA
dc.format.extent149 pagesen_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/124870
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherStellenbosch : Stellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.rights.holderStellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.subjectSeparation of powers -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectHousing rightsen_ZA
dc.subjectHousing rights infringementen_ZA
dc.subjectHousing rights remedies jurisprudenceen_ZA
dc.subjectUCTDen_ZA
dc.titleAn analysis of the Separation of Powers Doctrine in Housing Rights Remedies Jurisprudenceen_ZA
dc.typeThesisen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
weideman_separation_2022.pdf
Size:
1.65 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Masters Degrees (Public Law)