SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.26 issue1Bhuiyan Md JH and Khan BU (eds) Revisiting the Geneva Conventions: 1949-2019 (Brill Nijhoff Leiden 2019) ISBN 978 90 04 37553 6 (cased); 978 90 04 37554 3 (eBook)Is the Dawn of the Robot Lawyer upon us? The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Future of Lawyers author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PELJ)

On-line version ISSN 1727-3781

Abstract

NGWENYAMA, LR. The Obligation on Landowners to Accommodate ESTA Occupiers on their Land: Critically Analysing Daniels v Scribante 2017 4 SA 341 (CC). PER [online]. 2023, vol.26, n.1, pp.1-14. ISSN 1727-3781.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13335.

In Daniels v Scribante (hereafter the Daniels case) the Constitutional Court had to decide whether: (a) the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) afforded Ms Daniels the right to make improvements to her dwelling; (b) if consent from the person in charge, Mr Scribante, was a requirement for Ms Daniels to make such improvements; and (c) if consent was not a requirement, if Ms Daniels could effect improvements to the total disregard of Mr Scribante. The judgment in Daniels is important not only because it paved the way for Ms Daniels to effect improvements on her existing dwelling without the consent of Mr Scribante, but also because it showed that under section 8(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter the Constitution) on the application of the Bill of Rights Mr Scribante owed a positive obligation to Ms Daniels to ensure that she lived in conditions that afforded her human dignity. In Daniels the Constitutional Court indicated that private landowners were enjoined by section 25(6) of the Constitution through ESTA to accommodate ESTA occupiers on their land. According to the Constitutional Court in Daniels, the nature of the obligation imposed by section 25(6) of the Constitution was both negative and positive, and in this particular case it rested on Mr Scribante. Against this background, this case note provides at the outset the salient facts and judgment of the Daniels case. This is followed by an analysis aimed at critiquing the judgment in Daniels pertaining to what is expected of private landowners in the new constitutional dispensation. It is concluded that more may be required from the private landowner - a positive duty - to ensure that ESTA occupiers enjoy fundamental rights.

Keywords : ESTA occupiers; property rights of private landowners; horizontal application of rights; balancing of rights.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License