The justification of expropriation for economic development

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorVan der Walt, A. J.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorSlade, Bradley Virgillen_ZA
dc.contributor.otherStellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-09T10:51:39Zen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2012-12-12T08:19:15Z
dc.date.available2013-12-31T22:10:07Z
dc.date.issued2012-12en_ZA
dc.descriptionThesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012.
dc.description.abstractENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 25(2) of the 1996 Constitution states that property may only be expropriated for a public purpose or in the public interest and compensation must be paid. This dissertation analyses the public purpose and public interest requirement in light of recent court decisions, especially with regard to third party transfer of expropriated property for economic development purposes. The public purpose requirement is explained in terms of pre-constitutional case law to create a context in which to understand the public purpose and public interest in terms of the 1996 Constitution. This leads to a discussion of whether third party transfers for economic development purposes are generally for a public purpose or in the public interest. The legitimacy of the purpose of both the expropriation and the transfer of property to third parties in order to realise the purpose is considered. Conclusions from a discussion of foreign case law dealing with the same question are used to analyse the South African cases where third party transfers for economic development have been addressed. Based on the overview of foreign case law and the critical analysis of South African cases, the dissertation sets out guidelines that should be taken into account when this question comes up again in future. The dissertation also considers whether an expropriation can be set aside if alternative means, other than expropriating the property, are available that would also promote the purpose for which the property was expropriated. Recent decisions suggest that alternative and less invasive measures are irrelevant when the expropriation is clearly for a public purpose. However, the dissertation argues that less invasive means should be considered in cases where it is not immediately clear that the expropriation is for a valid public purpose or in the public interest, such as in the case of a third party transfer for economic development. The role of the public purpose post-expropriation is considered with reference to purposes that are not realised or are abandoned and subsequently changed. In this regard the dissertation considers whether the state is allowed to change the purpose for which the property was expropriated, and also under which circumstances the previous owner would be entitled to reclaim the expropriated property when the public purpose that justifies the expropriation falls away. It is contended that the purpose can be changed, but that the new purpose must also comply with the constitutional requirements.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 25(2) van die Grondwet van 1996 vereis dat `n onteining slegs vir `n openbare doel of in die openbare belang mag plaasvind, en dat vergoeding betaalbaar is. In die proefskrif word die openbare doel en openbare belang geanaliseer in die lig van onlangse regspraak wat veral verband hou met die onteining van grond wat oorgedra word aan derde partye vir doeleindes van ekonomiese ontwikkeling. Die openbare doel vereiste word geanaliseer in die lig van respraak voor die aanvang van die grondwetlike bedeling om beide die openbare doel en openbare belang in terme van die Grondwet van 1996 te verstaan. Op grond van hierdie bespreking word die vraag ondersoek of die onteiening van grond vir ekonomiese ontwikkeling en die oordrag daarvan aan derde partye vir `n openbare doel of in die openbare belang is. Gevolgtrekkings uit `n oorsig van buitelandse respraak waarin dieselfde vraag reeds behandel is dien as maatstaf vir die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak oor die vraag te evalueer. Op grond van die kritiese analise van die buitelandse regspraak word sekere aanbevelings gemaak wat in ag geneem behoort te word indien so `n vraag weer na vore kom. Die vraag of `n onteiening ter syde gestel kan word omdat daar `n alternatiewe, minder ingrypende manier is om die openbare doel te bereik word ook in die proefskrif aangespreek. In onlangse regspraak word aangedui dat die beskikbaarheid van ander, minder ingrypende maniere irrelevant is as die onteiening vir `n openbare doel of in die openbare belang geskied. Daar word hier aangevoer dat die beskikbaarheid van alternatiewe metodes in ag geneem behoort te word in gevalle waar dit onduidelik is of die onteining vir `n openbare doel of in die openbare belang geskied, soos in die geval van oordrag van grond aan derde partye vir ekonomiese ontwikkelingsdoeleindes. Ter aansluiting by die vraag of die onteining van grond vir oordrag aan derdes vir ekonomiese ontwikkeling geldig is, word die funksie van die openbare doel na onteiening ook ondersoek. Die vraag is of die staat geregtig is om die doel waarvoor die eiendom onteien is na afloop van die onteiening te verander. Die vraag in watter gevalle die vorige eienaar van die grond teruggawe van die grond kan eis word ook aangespreek. Daar word aangevoer dat die staat die doel waarvoor die eiendom benut word kan verander, maar dat die nuwe doel ook moet voldoen aan die grondwetlike vereistes.af_ZA
dc.description.sponsorshipSouth African Research Chair in Property Law, sponsored by the Department of Science and Technology, administered by the National Research Foundation and hosted by Stellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.description.sponsorshipCuicci bursary funden_ZA
dc.description.sponsorshipFaculty of Law Stellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.format.extentxi, 228 p.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/71965
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherStellenbosch : Stellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.rights.holderStellenbosch Universityen_ZA
dc.subjectConstitutional Property Lawen_ZA
dc.subjectRight to property -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectAdministrative Lawen_ZA
dc.subjectEminent domain -- Law and legislation -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectLand use -- Law and legislation -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectLand reform -- Law and legislation -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectLand tenure -- Law and legislation -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectTheses -- Lawen_ZA
dc.subjectDissertations -- Lawen_ZA
dc.subjectLand reform -- Government Policy -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectLand use -- Government policy -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subject.otherPublic Lawen_ZA
dc.titleThe justification of expropriation for economic developmenten_ZA
dc.typeThesisen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Thumbnail Image
Name:
slade.pdf
Size:
80.17 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
slade_justification_2012.pdf
Size:
2.1 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.98 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
Collections
Doctoral Degrees (Public Law)