Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorVan der Walt, A. J.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDube, Phephelaphien_ZA
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law.
dc.date.accessioned2009-11-23T07:52:09Zen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T08:34:30Z
dc.date.available2009-11-23T07:52:09Zen_ZA
dc.date.available2010-06-01T08:34:30Z
dc.date.issued2009-12en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/1836
dc.descriptionThesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractENGLISH ABSTRACT: The 1996 Constitution provides in s 25(7) that individuals and communities who had been dispossessed of rights in land after 19 June 1913, as a result of past discriminatory laws, may claim restitution or equitable redress. The Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 reiterates the 1913 cut-off date for restitution claims. The cut-off date appears to preclude pre-1913 land dispossessions. Various reasons are cited for this date, the most obvious being that it reflects the date on which the Black Land Act came into effect. The Richtersveld and Popela decisions of the lower courts appear to confirm the view that historically based land claims for dispossessions that occurred prior to 1913 are excluded from the restitution process. In Australia and Canada restitution orders have been made possible by the judicially crafted doctrine of aboriginal land rights. However, historical restitution claims based on this doctrine are constrained by the assumption that the Crown, in establishing title during colonisation, extinguished all existing titles to land. This would have meant that the indigenous proprietary systems would have been lost irrevocably through colonisation. In seeking to overcome the sovereignty issue, Australian and Canadian courts have distinguished between the loss of sovereignty and the loss of title to land. In this way, the sovereignty of the Crown is left intact while restitution orders are rendered possible. South African courts do not have to grapple with the sovereignty issue since post-apartheid legislation authorises the land restitution process. The appeal decisions in Richtersveld and Popela recognised that some use rights survived the colonial dispossession of ownership. This surviving right was later the subject of a second dispossession under apartheid. By using this construction, which is not unlike the logic of the doctrine of aboriginal title in fragmenting proprietary interests, the second dispossession could then be said to meet the 1913 cut-off date, so that all historically based land claims are not necessarily excluded by the 1913 cut-off date. However, it is still possible that some pre-1913 dispossessions could not be brought under the umbrella of the Richtersveld and Popela construction, and the question whether historically based restitution claims are possible despite the 1913 cut-off date will resurface, especially if the claimants are not accommodated in the government’s land redistribution programmeen_ZA
dc.description.abstractAFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die 1996 Grondwet bepaal in a 25(7) dat individue en gemeenskappe wat na 19 Junie 1913 van ‘n reg in grond ontneem is, as gevolg van rasgebaseerde wetgewing en praktyke, geregtig is om herstel van sodanige regte of gelykwaardige vergoeding te eis. Die Wet op Herstel van Grondregte 22 van 1994herhaal die 1913-afsnydatum vir grondeise. Dit lyk dus asof die afsnydatum die ontneming van grond voor 1913 uitsluit. Verskeie redes word vir hierdie datum aangevoer, waarvan die bekendste is dat dit die datum is waarop die Swart Grond Wet in werking getree het. Dit beslissing van die laer howe in beide die Richtersveld- en die Popela-beslissings bevestig blykbaar dat ontneming van grond of regte in grond voor 1913 van die restitusie-proses uitgesluit word. In Australië en Kanada is restitusiebevele moontlik gemaak deur die leerstuk van inheemse grondregte. Historiese restitusie-eise in hierdie jurisdiksies word egter aan bande gelê deur die veronderstelling dat die Kroon, deur die vestiging van titel gedurende kolonialisering, alle vorige titels op die grond uitgewis het. Dit sou beteken dat die inheemsregtelike grondregsisteme onherroeplik verlore geraak het deur kolonialisering. Ten einde die soewereiniteitsprobleem te oorkom het die Australiese en Kanadese howe onderskei tussen die verlies van soewereiniteit en die verlies van titel tot die grond. Op hierdie wyse word die soewereiniteit van die Kroon onaangeraak gelaat terwyl restitusiebevele steeds ‘n moontlikheid is. Suid-Afrikaanse howe het nie nodig gehad om die soewereiniteitskwessie aan te spreek nie omdat post-apartheid wetgewing die herstel van grondregte magtig. Die appélbeslissings in Richtersveld en Popela erken dat sekere gebruiksregte die koloniale ontneming van eiendom oorleef het. Die oorblywende gebruiksregte is later ‘n tweede keer ontneem as gevolg van apartheid. Deur gebruikmaking van hierdie konstruksie, wat dieselfde logika volg as die leerstuk van inheemsregtelike regte en berus op fragmentasie van eiendomsaansprake, kan gesê word dat die tweede ontneming van grond wel binne die 1913-afsnydatum val. Gevolglik sal alle historiese restitusie-eise nie noodwendig deur die 1913- afsnydatum uitgesluit word nie. Dit is steeds moontlik dat sommige pre-1913 ontnemings nooit onder die vaandel van die Richtersveld- en Popela-beslissings gebring sal kan word nie, en die vraag of histories gebaseerde eise moontlik is ongeag die 1913-afsnydatum sal daarom weer opduik, veral indien die grondeisers nie geakkommodeer word in die grondherverdelingsprogram van die staat nie.en_ZA
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherStellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch
dc.subjectLand restitutionen_ZA
dc.subjectPost colonial jurisprudenceen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshLand reform -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshProperty law -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.titleReconsidering historically based land claimsen_ZA
dc.typeThesisen_ZA
dc.rights.holderUniversity of Stellenbosch
dc.rights.holderDissertations -- Lawen
dc.rights.holderTheses -- Lawen
dc.rights.holderDissertations -- Public lawen
dc.rights.holderTheses -- Public lawen
dc.subject.corpSouth Africa -- Restitution of Land Rights Act 22en_ZA


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record