Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorVan der Walt, A.J.en_ZA
dc.contributor.advisorPienaar, G.J.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorvan der Merwe, Zerlindaen_ZA
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Department of Public Law.
dc.date.accessioned2010-11-08T12:18:51Zen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-15T10:35:51Z
dc.date.available2010-11-08T12:18:51Zen_ZA
dc.date.available2010-12-15T10:35:51Z
dc.date.issued2010-12
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/5342
dc.descriptionThesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010.
dc.descriptionBibliography
dc.description.abstractENGLISH ABSTRACT: Various types of rules govern many areas of life in a sectional title scheme. The Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 prescribes model management and conduct rules in its regulations. Other non-prescribed rules are adopted by either the developers initially or later by the trustees of the body corporate. These rules provide for the control, management, administration, use and enjoyment of the sections and the common property in the scheme. Sectional owners and other occupiers have the entitlements of use and enjoyment of their individual sections and their share in the common property of the sectional title scheme, in proportion to their participation quota. These entitlements are restricted by the rules in operation within the scheme. Although these rules limit the entitlements of sectional owners and other occupiers in the interest of the sectional title community, they may not be unreasonable in their application and effect. In some instances, the application of the rules might exceed the bounds of reasonableness and result in unfair discrimination, arbitrary deprivation, unfair administrative action or restrictions on access to courts for dispute resolution. If certain rules are unreasonable in their application, based on one or more of the abovementioned grounds, the court must interpret the potentially impermissible rules and if the court cannot avoid a declaration of invalidity by implementing a constitutional remedy such as reading-up, reading-down, reading-in or severance, these impermissible rules will need to be substituted, amended or repealed and replaced because they are potentially unconstitutional and invalid. After a statutory and constitutional enquiry into the nature, scope, application, operation and effect of the rules governing sectional title schemes, it can be concluded that the various types of rules governing sectional title schemes restrict and limit sectional owners’ and occupiers’ entitlements of use and enjoyment of their individual sections and share in the common property. However, after being tested against section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 and other non-property rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, to determine if the rules are reasonable in their application and constitutionally permissible, it can be seen that the application of the rules do not necessarily amount to arbitrary deprivations of property and that they can be justified in terms of the Constitution because there is sufficient reasons for the particular regulations and they are procedurally fair. The various different types of rules governing sectional title schemes serve as reasonable regulations in as far as they contribute to a harmonious relationship between the trustees of the body corporate and the sectional owners and occupiers as members of the body corporate as well as between the members of the body corporate inter se. The rules serve an important function in this regard. Therefore, they are considered reasonable and constitutionally valid in as far as they do not enforce excessive regulation and as long as they are equally applicable and do not unfairly differentiate in their application.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Verskeie tipes reëls reguleer alledaagse aangeleenthede in ‘n deeltitelskema. Die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986 maak voorsiening vir voorgeskrewe bestuurs- en gedragsreëls in die regulasies. Die ontwikkelaars of die trustees van die regspersoon kan aanvanklik met die stigting van die skema of op ‘n latere stadium addisionele reëls byvoeg wat nie alreeds deur die Wet voorgeskryf is nie. Die reëls maak voorsiening vir die beheer, bestuur, administrasie, gebruik en genot van die eenheid en die gemeenskaplike eiendom in die skema. Die deeleienaars van deeltitelskemas en ander okkupeerders van die skema is geregtig om hulle individuele eenhede sowel as die gemeenskaplike eiendom, in ooreenstemming met hulle deelnemingskwota, te gebruik en geniet; en dit vorm deel van hul inhoudsbevoegdhede. Hierdie inhoudsbevoegdhede word beperk deur die skema se reëls. Afgesien daarvan dat die reëls die deeleienaar en ander okkupeerders se inhoudsbevoegdhede beperk in die belang van die deeltitelgemeenskap, mag die reëls nie onredelik wees in die toepassing daarvan nie. In sommige gevalle kan die toepassing van die reëls die perke van redelikheid oorskry en neerkom op ongeregverdigde diskriminasie, arbitrêre ontneming, ongeregverdigde administratiewe handeling of ‘n beperking plaas op toegang tot die howe met die oog op dispuutoplossing. Indien daar bevind word dat sekere reëls onredelik is in die toepassing daarvan op grond van een of meer van die voorafgemelde gronde, moet die hof artikel 39 van die Grondwet volg en die reël interpreteer om ‘n deklarasie van ongeldigheid te vermy. As die hof dit nie kan vermy deur middel van konstitutusionele remedies soos “op-lesing”, “af-lesing”, “afskeiding” of “in-lesing” nie, sal die reëls gewysig of geskrap en vervang moet word, anders sal die reël ongrondwetlik wees en ongeldig verklaar word. Na afloop van ‘n statutêre en konstitusionele ondersoek ten opsigte van die aard, omvang, toepassing, werking en effek van die reëls wat deeltitelskemas reguleer word daar bevind dat die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer ‘n beperking plaas op die inhousdbevoegdhede van deeltiteleienaars en ander okkupeerders wat betref die reg om die eenheid sowel as die gemeenskaplike eiendom te gebruik en geniet. Ten einde te bepaal of die reëls redelik in die toepassing daarvan sowel as grondwetlik toelaatbaar is, word dit getoets in terme van artikel 25 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 1996 en ander regte in die Handves van Regte. Daar word bevind dat die toepassing van die reëls nie noodwendig ‘n arbitrêre ontneming van eiendom is nie en dat dit geregverdig kan word in terme van die Grondwet omdat daar voldoende redes vir die spesifieke regulasies is en omdat dat hulle prosedureel billik is. Die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer dien as redelike regulasies sover dit bydra tot ‘n harmonieuse verhouding tussen die trustees van die regspersoon, die deeltiteleienaars en die okkupeerders as lede van die regspersoon sowel as tussen die lede van die regspersoon inter se. Die reëls het ‘n belangrike funksie in hierdie verband. Die reëls word geag redelik en grondwetlik geldig te wees sover dit nie buitensporige regulasies afdwing nie, gelyk toegepas word en daar nie ongeregverdig gedifferensieer word in die toepassing daarvan nie.en_ZA
dc.format.extent145 p
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherStellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch
dc.subjectConstitutionalityen_ZA
dc.subjectRulesen_ZA
dc.subjectSectional title schemesen_ZA
dc.subjectSectional title rulesen_ZA
dc.subjectTheses -- Lawen_ZA
dc.subjectDissertations -- Lawen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshCondominiums -- Law and legislation -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshJoint tenancy -- Law and legislation -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subject.lcshAdministrative agencies -- Rules and practice -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subject.otherPublic Lawen_ZA
dc.titleConstitutionality of the rules governing sectional title schemesen_ZA
dc.typeThesis
dc.rights.holderUniversity of Stellenbosch
 Find Full text

Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record