The The Obligation on Landowners to Accommodate ESTA Occupiers on their Land: Critically Analysing Daniels v Scribante 2017 4 SA 341 (CC)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13335

Keywords:

Constitutional obligations, Private landowners, ESTA Occupiers, Habitability, property rights of private landowners, horizontal application of rights, balancing of rights

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bibliography

Literature

Alexander GS "Pluralism and Property" 2011 Fordham L Rev 1017-1052

Cheadle H and Davis D "The Application of the 1996 Constitution in the Private Sphere" 1997 SAJHR 44-66 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.1997.11834937

Crawford C "The Social Function of Property and the Human Capacity to Flourish" 2011 Fordham L Rev 1089-1134

Currie I and De Waal J The Bill of Rights Handbook 6th ed (Juta Cape Town 2013)

De Vos et al South African Constitutional Law in Context (Oxford University Press Cape Town 2021)

Dhliwayo P and Dyal-Chand R "Property in Law" in Muller G et al (eds) Transformative Property Law: Festschrift in Honour of AJ van der Walt (Juta Cape Town 2018) 295-317

Liebenberg S "The Application of Socio-Economic Rights to Private Law" 2008 TSAR 464-480

Mirow MC "The Social-Obligation Norm of Property: Duguit, Hayem and Others" 2010 Fla J Int'l L 191-226

Ngwenyama A Common Standard of Habitability? A Comparison Between Tenants, Usufructuaries and Occupiers in South African Law (LLD-dissertation Stellenbosch University 2020)

Sprigman C and Osborne M "Du Plessis is not Dead: South Africa's 1996 Constitution and the Application of the Bill of Rights to Private Disputes" 1999 SAJHR 25-51 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.1999.11834998

Van der Walt AJ The Law of Servitudes (Juta Cape Town 2016)

Case law

Baron v Claytile (Pty) Ltd 2017 5 SA 329 (CC)

Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2004 4 SA 490 (CC)

Daniels v Scribante 2017 4 SA 341 (CC) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351179270-11

Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs; Shalabi v Minister of Home Affairs; Thomas v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 3 SA 936 (CC)

De Jager v Mazibuko (LCC57/2020) [2020] ZALCC 7 (25 August 2020) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1714771

Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School v Essay (CCT 29/10) [2011] ZACC 13 (11 April 2011)

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 1 SA 46 (CC)

Hattingh v Juta 2013 3 SA 275 (CC)

Holomisa v Khumalo 2002 3 SA 38 (T)

In re: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 1996 4 SA 744 (CC)

Jaftha v Schoeman, Van Rooyen v Stoltz 2005 2 SA 140 (CC) DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/sece.2005.7.464

Khumalo v Holomisa 2002 5 SA 401 (CC)

Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (2) 2002 5 SA 721 (CC)

National Media Ltd v Bogoshi 1998 4 SA 1196 (SCA)

Nkosi v Buhrmann (1/2000) [2001] ZASCA 98 (25 September 2001)

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers 2005 1 SA 217 (CC)

Rail Commuters Action Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail 2005 2 SA 359 (CC)

S v Baloyi 2000 2 SA 425 (CC)

S v Makwanyane 1995 3 SA 391 (CC)

Thoroughbred Breeders' Association v Price Waterhouse 2001 4 SA 551 (SCA)

Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 1 SA 389 (SCA)

Legislation

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997

Extension of Security of Tenure Amendment Act 2 of 2018

Published

08-09-2023

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Ngwenyama, L. R. (2023). The The Obligation on Landowners to Accommodate ESTA Occupiers on their Land: Critically Analysing Daniels v Scribante 2017 4 SA 341 (CC). Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 26, (Published on 8 September 2023) pp 1 - 14. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13335

Similar Articles

251-260 of 1147

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.