Masters Degrees (Private Law)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/3637

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Private Law) by Subject "Condominium office buildings -- Law and legislation -- South Africa"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    'n Regsvergelykende studie van sakedeeleiendom ingevolge die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 1992) Blignaut, Elizabeth Margaretha; Butler, D. W.; Van der Merwe, C. G.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Private Law.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Although commercial sectional title schemes occur in practice, the provisions of the South African Sectional Titles Act are primarily aimed at residential schemes. Many of its provisions are therefore unsuitable for commercial schemes. The aims of this dissertation are to identify those provisions which create problems for commercial owners and to suggest improvements to the South African statute in the light of comparable legislation elsewhere. "Common property" is defined in the Act to include the building's external shell, which commercial owners wish to use for advertising purposes. The insertion of a statutory provision, which will permit portions of the external shells of buildings in commercial schemes to he made exclusive use areas, will cater for the needs of commercial owners, while ensuring sufficient control by the body corporate. The Act of 1986 gives a discretion to the developer of a commercial scheme to determine the basis of the participation quota, hut doubt exists as to the exact extent thereof. The South African statute should provide expressly for the choice of even three different bases for the three different interests, as well as for different bases for the allocation of different rights or duties which each interest represents. Regarding physical changes, improvements and alterations to the common property or to a section's interior pose few problems. Those that do occur can be dealt with by express regulatory provisions in the Act, supplemented by rules. Commercial owners with space problems may utilise the effective provisions on subdivision and consolidation. The omission of a provision for resubdivision from the 1986 Act imposes unnecessary constraints on commercial owners. A provision for resubdivision shouId be re-inserted in the statute, containing sufficient detail to ensure its smooth operation. The lacuna in the Act regarding the complete reorganisation of a scheme should be dealt with in the same way. The Act requires a unanimous resolution to extend a section to incorporate part of the common property. This strict requirement is justified because the interests of other owners are affected. Its effect is mitigated by the possibility of the commercial owner expanding his business activities in the scheme without extending his section. The statutory provisions regarding a development in phases should however be amplified to provide for the expanding needs of commercial owners. The complicated statutory provisions for the termination of a scheme pose serious problems for commercial owners. The circumstances justifying termination should be defined more clearly. Stricter requirements for the intervention of the court should be set. Disparate aspects should moreover be regulated in separate sections. Several model rules and the underlying statutory provisions can seriously hamper the business activities of commercial owners. The wording of section 35 regarding the power to make rules has however been improved in the Amendment Act of 1991. The model rules do not meet the needs of commercial owners and suggestions are made for improving the conduct rules in particular. Additional sanctions, namely fines and the suspension of an owner's right to use the common property, are suggested.