The non-restoration of land: scope and ambit of section 34 of the restitution of land rights act
- Authors: Christoffels, Eugene Miles
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: Restitution -- South Africa , Land reform -- South Africa Land reform -- Government policy -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/23869 , vital:30636
- Description: The land question is an emotionally-laden issue for all people across the racial divide in South Africa, albeit for different reasons land serves a variety of human needs: it creates a sense of identity, it creates wealth, imbues the owner with human dignity; it is also an axis for social cohesion and it is key to the exercise of economic and political power. South Africa is still in the throes of withdrawal symptoms as a result of a checkered colonial past, when it comes to the issue of the land. Having been dispossessed of their ancestral land by the country’s former colonial rulers, the majority of South Africans now have the yearning that the wrongs of the past be addressed, and that justice be done. Having repealed the Apartheid laws which had provided for the calculated systematic dispossession of the land and rights in land of the majority of citizens of South Africa, was and is not sufficient. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, being negotiated Constitution, which is internationally lauded, provides for a three-pronged land reform programme, namely restitution, redistribution and tenure reform. The focus of this dissertation is on the restitution leg and more specifically the issue of non-restoration which is provided for in section 34 of the RLRA 22 of 1994, as amended (the RLRA). Section 34 specifically provides that in some instances, land will not be restored to claimants even though they may satisfy the requirements for a valid claim provided for in section 25(7) of the Constitution and section 2 of the RLRA. It is submitted that it is necessary to acquire an understanding of the requirements for a restitution claim even though the land claimed may be removed from the process before a claim has been finalised, since the claimants will still have to satisfy the abovementioned requirements after a particular parcel of land or right in land has been removed from the process by a court of law. In other words, the court has made an order of non-restoration even before the claim has been finalised. Such an application for non-restoration of the land in question or rights in relation to land, may be brought by any national, provincial or local government body, in terms of section 34(1) of the RLRA, and the court will then grant such application provided the applicant has convinced the court that the two threshold requirements listed in section 34(6) have been satisfied. This dissertation outlines a number of cases which serve as practical examples of how the courts dealt with the threshold requirements contained in section 34(6). Included in this examination is the courts’ interpretation of the concepts “public interest” and “substantial prejudice”, which are contained in the requirements listed in section 34(6). This dissertation furthermore sought to determine whether the courts have adopted a broad or narrow approach to these concepts and whether the approach that the courts have adopted strikes an appropriate balance between the constitutional right to restitution and the goals underlying section 34. What is evident from the research is that, apart from the Constitutional Court in the KwaLindile case, none of the other courts provided a substantive definition of the concept “public interest”, but rather chose to refer to academic writings. It is submitted that the courts by and large appear to overlook the fact that the restitution of land and rights in land and arguably, the restoration of land, are in the public interest. While the courts do acknowledge the claimants’ rights to restitution, they downplay the importance of restoration since they argue that there is only a right to restitution and not a right to restoration, and that claimants can still be offered an alternative remedy in lieu of restoration, and in the process courts are ignorant of the fact that these other remedies do not help to change the skewed racial distribution of land in South Africa. Two factors seem to weigh heavily with the courts in favouring the granting of a section 34 order, it being the development of the land or development potential and the avoidance of the cost of a lengthy trial focusing on the restoration when there is no chance of success. It is submitted that there seems to be an over-emphasis on these factors while ignoring the fact that a person’s house is part of his identity, deserving more protection than other property, such as a shopping centre, which is not constitutive of a person’s identity. This view is espoused by Radin. Dyal-Chand postulates the idea that property is not always exclusive but can be shared. This would mean that when it comes to property like shopping centres, which she regards as quasi-public property, the courts should be more willing to grant restoration orders and thus not be so willing to grant section 34 non-restoration orders. Even though the RLRA, through section 34(5)(c) gives the courts the power to transform our colonial system of property law, it is submitted that they have largely failed to rise to this challenge. There appears to be an unwillingness to make a shift from our Roman-Dutch law past and break with our Eurocentric view of property law.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2018
Access to land as a human right the payment of just and equitable compensation for dispossessed land in South Africa
- Authors: Yanou, Michael A
- Date: 2005
- Subjects: Human rights -- South Africa , Compensation (Law) -- South Africa , Right of property -- South Africa , Land reform -- South Africa , Land tenure -- South Africa , Constitutional history -- South Africa , Restitution -- South Africa , Land tenure -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Land reform -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3699 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003214 , Human rights -- South Africa , Compensation (Law) -- South Africa , Right of property -- South Africa , Land reform -- South Africa , Land tenure -- South Africa , Constitutional history -- South Africa , Restitution -- South Africa , Land tenure -- Law and legislation -- South Africa , Land reform -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Description: This thesis deals with the conceptualization of access to land by the dispossessed as a human right and commences with an account of the struggle for land between the peoples of African and European extractions in South Africa. It is observed that the latter assumed sovereignty over the ancestral lands of the former. The thesis discusses the theoretical foundation of the study and situates the topic within its conceptual parameters. The writer examines the notions of justice and equity in the context of the post apartheid constitutional mandate to redress the skewed policy of the past. It is argued that the dispossession of Africans from lands that they had possessed for thousands of years on the assumption that the land was terra nullius was profoundly iniquitous and unjust. Although the study is technically limited to dispossessions occurring on or after the 13th June 1913, it covers a fairly extensive account of dispossession predating this date. This historical analysis is imperative for two reasons. Besides supporting the writer’s contention that the limitation of restitution to land dispossessed on or after 1913 was arbitrary, it also highlights both the material and non-material cost of the devastating wars of dispossessions. The candidate comments extensively on the post apartheid constitutional property structure which was conceived as a redress to the imbalance created by dispossession. This underlying objective explains why the state’s present land policy is geared towards facilitating access to land for the landless. The thesis investigates the extent to which the present property structure which defines access to land as a human right has succeeded in achieving the stated objective. It reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the land restitution process as well as the question of the payment of just and equitable compensation for land expropriated for restitution. The latter was carefully examined because it plays a crucial role in the success or otherwise of the restitution scheme. The writer argues that the courts have, on occasions, construed just and equitable compensation generously. This approach has failed to reflect the moral component inherent in the Aristotelian corrective justice. This, in the context of South Africa, requires compensation to reflect the fact that what is being paid for is land dispossessed from the forebears of indigenous inhabitants. It seems obvious that the scales of justice are tilted heavily in favour of the propertied class whose ancestors were responsible for this dispossession. This has a ripple effect on the pace of the restitution process. It also seems to have the effect of favouring the property class at the expense of the entire restitution process. The candidate also comments on the court’s differing approaches to the interpretation of the constitutional property clause. The candidate contends that the construction of the property clause and related pieces of legislation in a manner that stresses the maintenance of a balance between private property interest and land reform is flawed. This contention is supported by the fact that these values do not have proportional worth in the present property context of South Africa. The narrow definition of “past racially discriminatory law and practices” and labour tenant as used in the relevant post apartheid land reform laws is criticized for the same reason of its uncontextual approach. A comparative appraisal of similar developments relating to property law in other societies like India and Zimbabwe has been done. The writer has treated the post reform land evictions as a form of dispossession. The candidate notes that the country should guard against allowing the disastrous developments in Zimbabwe to influence events in the country and calls for an amendment of the property clause of the constitution in response to the practical difficulties which a decade of the operation of the current constitution has revealed.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2005
Rights-based restitution in South Africa : developmental land reform or relocation in reverse?
- Authors: Roodt, Monty
- Date: 2004
- Subjects: Restitution -- South Africa , Land reform -- South Africa , Right of property -- South Africa , Land settlement -- South Africa , Land tenure -- South Africa , South Africa -- Commission on Restitution of Land Rights
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3351 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1007211 , Restitution -- South Africa , Land reform -- South Africa , Right of property -- South Africa , Land settlement -- South Africa , Land tenure -- South Africa , South Africa -- Commission on Restitution of Land Rights
- Description: The main question of this thesis is to what extent the rights-based and market-driven nature of the restitution program has given rise to a legalistic and bureaucratic process that negates both the demand-driven and the developmental aspects of restitution as land reform. I answer this question by showing that the choice of a Constitutional model with a Bill of Rights provides the background for a rights-based land reform program. This is especially true for the restitution sub-program, one of the three branches along with redistribution and tenure of the overall land reform program. I then consider the debate around the property clause, and how its inclusion provided the context for a market and rights-based approach to land reform as opposed to a supply-led administrative approach. Because the property clause as a First Generation right prevents expropriation of land without market-related compensation, a complex and legalistic land reform program falling within the ambit of Second Generation rights was formulated to address the gross imbalance in land ownership in South Africa. I argue that the contemporary origin of Second Generation human rights lies within the context of class and anti-globalisation struggles for democracy, and that they are something to be fought for and defended. I discuss the distinction between First, Second and Third Generation rights and identify four spheres within which the struggle for Second and Third Generation rights takes place within modern democratic states. These are the state, the representative public sphere, civil society and the private sphere. I then deal with the problem of trying to turn "paper rights" into realisable rights for the more disadvantaged sectors of society. I also look at what impedes their realisation. I argue that a number of strategies are necessary to ensure the delivery of Second and Third Generation rights. These are an adequate legislative framework, a good communication strategy, the development of institutional capacity to deliver, and if all else fails, access to conflict resolution mechanisms. I consider the major impediments to the realisation of Second and Third Generation rights to be the way in which they are defined in relation to First Generation rights, especially the property clause, the way in which access to rights-backed resources through formal institutions are mediated by the operation of informal institutions, and the dearth of administrative competence in South Africa. My point is that in order for Second and Third Generation rights to have practical benefit for the dispossessed and poor, extraordinary measures are needed. The Restitution arm of the land reform program provides in theory just such extraordinary measures, albeit for only a section of the population. I analyse the effectiveness of the Land Claims Court in assisting restitution claimants and the rural poor to realize their rights. I trace the slow and haphazard shift from a positivistic statutory interpretation (narrow, literal, legalistic) to a purposive interpretation (informed by the Constitutional spirit and social purpose of the legislation) by the Court. This is followed by an analysis of the restitution business process, which means tracing the path of the claim from lodgement to settlement. I set out the costly, complex and legalistic implementation and policy process in some detail. My argument is that in order for a rights-based approach to overcome the impediments outlined in Chapter 3, as well as the property clause in the Constitution, its architects designed a complex process that in the end proved counter-productive in terms of its original aims. The failure of the process to deliver led in 1998 the then Minister of Land Affairs, Derek Hannekom, to appoint a Ministerial Review to investigate the problems. Problems included: slowness of delivery, the crisis of unplannability, low levels of trust between implementers, and high levels of frustration. Two issues are analysed more fully, the rights-driven approach as opposed to the rights-based approach and the lack of claimant participation in taking control of the restitution process. I examine the relationship of the Restitution Commission to the Department of Land Affairs and to municipal land use planning processes. The emphasis on rights within the restitution program had the effect of distancing restitution, especially in the first few years of the programs' existence, from the rest of the land reform program, as well as from the local government process of formulating land development objectives (LDOs), and the Integrated Development Planning (lOP) process. I look at the Port Elizabeth Land and Community Restoration Association (Pelcra) as a case study as it embodies an approach that tries to move beyond a mere reclaiming of rights in land and attempts to implement a developmental approach. I conclude that the rights-based restitution program in spite of its many shortcomings has had some success. It has moved slowly from an overly legalistic judicial program to a more administrative but still bureaucratic process, that has delivered only 27 percent of its product as land reform, the rest going to monetary compensation mainly in urban areas. Thus it can be argued that restitution has been more successful as a program to promote reconciliation along the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, than as a land reform program, especially if one regards land reform as the restoration of rural land to the indigenous population. There have also been some successful attempts by the Commission, such as in the case of PELCRA, to integrate the processing of its claims with local government planning processes, but progress in this direction remains patchy.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2004