The discretion of courts in encroachment disputes
| dc.contributor.author | Boggenpoel, Z. T. | en_ZA |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-07-03T08:19:27Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2013-07-03T08:19:27Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.description | Regsgeleerdheid | |
| dc.description | Privaatreg | |
| dc.description | Please help us populate SUNScholar with the post print version of this article. It can be e-mailed to: scholar@sun.ac.za | |
| dc.description.abstract | The main focus of this note is Phillips v South African National Parks Board (4035/07) [2010] ZAECGHC 27 (22 April 2010) SAFLII <http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAECGHC/2010/27.html> (accessed 13-06-2012), which was a case dealing with the erection of a fence that encroached on the applicant’s property. The note explores the current way that courts deal with encroachment disputes in light of the Phillips judgment. This judgment correctly confirms that courts assume the existence of a wide discretion to replace injunctive relief (or mandatory interdicts) with compensatory awards; it illustrates how the discretion will be exercised in order to reach a just and equitable outcome and lays open the possible constitutional implications that may be triggered if encroachments are not ordered to be removed. What is problematic in this case is that the court considered the possibility of ordering transfer of the land to the affected landowner. If a court exercises its discretion in favour of leaving the encroachment in place and additionally orders that the encroached-upon land be transferred to the encroacher, this court order sanctions an involuntary transfer of the affected property. The loss of property or property rights needs to comply with section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The crucial concern in this case is whether the common law actually authorises such a court order that results in the deprivation. However, the possible constitutional problem that may have been created by an order for transfer of the affected land was avoided because the court ordered in terms of its discretion that the encroachment be removed. It should be noted, though, that the court’s remarks concerning the transfer order were made purely on the basis of the balance of prejudice and not on any constitutional principle. To my mind, the possibility of constitutional infringement may very well have arisen if the balance of prejudice favoured the encroacher and therefore the issue needs to be considered. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Stellenbosch Law Review | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/82249 | |
| dc.publisher | Juta | |
| dc.subject | Encroachment disputes | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Adjoining landowners -- Law and legislation | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Right of property | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Property -- Boundaries | en_ZA |
| dc.title | The discretion of courts in encroachment disputes | |
| dc.type | Article |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- Boggenpoel_TheDiscretion_2012.pdf
- Size:
- 326.02 KB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
- Download article