Resumen
Summary PVL2002H case summaries
- Grado
- Institución
I have summarized all 14 of the cases mentioned above. These core principles come in handy when referencing during exams and long/short answers.
[Mostrar más]Vista previa 2 fuera de 17 páginas
Vista previa 2 fuera de 17 páginas
Añadir al carrito
Añadir al carrito
1 revisar
Por: christopherjohnston • 1 año hace
Vendedor
Seguir
TJDlamini
Comentarios recibidos
Vista previa del contenido
Port Elizabeth vs Various Occupiers (Constitutional Court)Facts:
- The applicant municipality was granted an order of eviction by the High Court for 68
unlawful occupiers of land within its jurisdiction, (In terms of s 6 of the Prevention of Illegal
Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998)
- Order set aside on appeal by SCA
- Was vacant land > occupiers been on land for between 2 and 8 years.
- Prior to granting of the order, occupiers indicated to municipality preparedness to vacate
land if municipality provided them with suitable alternative accommodation.
- Present application = municipality sought leave to appeal against the SCA decision, to have
the eviction order restored.
Legal issue:
- is the municipality constitutionally bound to provide alternative accommodation or land
when it seeks to evict unlawful occupiers?
Ratio:
- The Constitutional Court found that the eviction could not go ahead.
Applicable law:
- The Bill of Rights
- The Prevention pf Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act
Reasoning:
- Sachs J ; referenced the judiciary’s “new task” which was to manage the inequality that
conventional rights of ownership causes against the new, equally relevant, right not to be
arbitrarily deprived of a home.
- The Pie Act (which was heavily relied on by the municipality) was found to require the courts
to “infuse elements of grace and compassion into the formal structures of the law.”
- Courts are called upon to” balance competing interests and promote the constitutional
vision of a caring society based on good neighbourliness and shared concern”.
Conclusion:
- This case displays the impact of the Constitution on the Law of Property
, Ex Parte Geldunhuys 1926 OPD
Facts:
- Concerned a dispute about the registrability of rights created in a will
- The will determined that the land in the estate would be divided in equal parts among the
children of the deceased once the eldest came of age.
- When this happened, the portion to be allocated to each was to be determined by the
children drawing lots.
- The child who drew the portion that included the homestead would be obliged to pay an
amount of money to the other children.
- The Registrar of Deeds refused to register these conditions, arguing that they did not
establish real rights in land because no diminution of ownership entitlements resulted.
Legal issue:
- Can a personal right be registered by virtue of its close relationship with a real right?
Reasoning:
- The question here is whether the conditions of this will can be considered real rights
- Real rights being (ones which burden the land (and its successors in title) and constitute a
deduction from the dominium.
- The key is that the obligation which arises from a real right must survive a transfer of
ownership and continue to burden the land.
- It must be an obligation binding not just on one person, but on ‘anyone’.
- The provisions of the will (drawing of lots when eldest came of age) restricted the
common-law right of co-owners to claim division of the land held jointly at any time they
chose and to divide it as they chose. (uncertain whether the eldest will reach majority
first).
- This restriction, it was found, adhered to, and affected so directly the entitlements of
ownership of undivided co-ownership shares that, necessarily, they had to be regarded as
a real burden upon that ownership.
- As for the 200 pounds that the owner of the homestead must pay to the others, this is
undeniably a personal right, because the ownership of money cannot easily be held to be
a real right, and the obligation is uncertain and conditional upon the outcome of the
drawing of lots.
- It is not a registrable right per se; however, it is so closely related to the registrable (real)
right that it must also be registered in the title deed.
- If not, it would give a misleading representation of testamentary direction, especially to
strangers who wanted to purchase one of the undivided shares.
Ratio:
- Yes. A personal right can be registrable if it is inextricably linked to one or more real rights.
Outcome:
- The applicant’s prayer for the registering of the entire clause in the will is granted.
Los beneficios de comprar resúmenes en Stuvia estan en línea:
Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios
Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!
Compra fácil y rápido
Puedes pagar rápidamente y en una vez con iDeal, tarjeta de crédito o con tu crédito de Stuvia. Sin tener que hacerte miembro.
Enfócate en lo más importante
Tus compañeros escriben los resúmenes. Por eso tienes la seguridad que tienes un resumen actual y confiable. Así llegas a la conclusión rapidamente!
Preguntas frecuentes
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
100% de satisfacción garantizada: ¿Cómo funciona?
Nuestra garantía de satisfacción le asegura que siempre encontrará un documento de estudio a tu medida. Tu rellenas un formulario y nuestro equipo de atención al cliente se encarga del resto.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller TJDlamini. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for 15,49 €. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
45,681 summaries were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now