Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Reconsidering historically based land claims
Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009.
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867614134740189184 |
|---|---|
| access_status_str | Open Access |
| author | Dube, Phephelaphi |
| author2 | Van der Walt, A. J. |
| author_browse | Dube, Phephelaphi Van der Walt, A. J. |
| author_facet | Van der Walt, A. J. Dube, Phephelaphi |
| author_sort | Dube, Phephelaphi |
| collection | Thesis |
| dc_rights_str_mv | University of Stellenbosch Dissertations -- Law Theses -- Law Dissertations -- Public law Theses -- Public law |
| description | Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/1836 |
| institution | Stellenbosch University (South Africa) |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2026-06-10T12:47:13.037Z |
| license_str | Other — see source repository |
| provenance_str_mv | Harvested via OAI-PMH from SUNScholar — Stellenbosch University Repository |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publishDateRange | 2009 |
| publishDateSort | 2009 |
| publisher | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| publisherStr | Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| record_format | dspace |
| source_str | SUNScholar — Stellenbosch University Repository |
| spelling | oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/1836 Reconsidering historically based land claims Dube, Phephelaphi Van der Walt, A. J. University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law. Land restitution Post colonial jurisprudence South Africa -- Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 Land reform -- South Africa Property law -- South Africa Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. ENGLISH 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 programme AFRIKAANSE 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. 2009-11-23T07:52:09Z 2010-06-01T08:34:30Z 2009-11-23T07:52:09Z 2010-06-01T08:34:30Z 2009-12 Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/1836 en University of Stellenbosch Dissertations -- Law Theses -- Law Dissertations -- Public law Theses -- Public law application/pdf Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch |
| spellingShingle | Land restitution Post colonial jurisprudence South Africa -- Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 Land reform -- South Africa Property law -- South Africa Dube, Phephelaphi Reconsidering historically based land claims |
| title | Reconsidering historically based land claims |
| title_full | Reconsidering historically based land claims |
| title_fullStr | Reconsidering historically based land claims |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reconsidering historically based land claims |
| title_short | Reconsidering historically based land claims |
| title_sort | reconsidering historically based land claims |
| topic | Land restitution Post colonial jurisprudence South Africa -- Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 Land reform -- South Africa Property law -- South Africa |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/1836 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dubephephelaphi reconsideringhistoricallybasedlandclaims |