Creating a Servitude to solve an Encroachment Dispute: A Solution or creating another Problem?

Authors

  • Zsa-Zsa Temmers Boggenpoel University of Stellenbosch

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2013/v16i5a2441

Keywords:

Encroachment, Servitude, Reasonableness, Arbitrary deprivation, Property, Roseveare v Katmer, Katmer v Roseveare.

Abstract

The main focus of this note is the case of Roseveare v Katmer, Katmer v Roseveare 2013 ZAGPJHC 18, which provides an interesting (though possibly constitutionally problematic) perspective to the encroachment problem. The decision in this case has opened the door for courts to create servitudes in instances where encroachments are left intact based on policy reasons. Concerning these policy reasons, the note investigates the reasonableness standard as it was applied in the case. It is argued that it is important to differentiate between the applications of reasonableness in encroachment cases and alleged nuisance disputes.

 

The decision in this case creates the impression that courts may now order that a servitude be registered in favour of the encroacher against the affected landowner’s property. It seems as though the court had in mind the creation of a praedial servitude to justify the continued existence of the encroachment. The servitude is created by court order against the will of the affected landowner. At common law, the creation of a servitude in this respect does not exist, and the authority from which the power derives to make an order like this is not entirely clear. The court also does not provide any authority for the creation of the servitude in favour of the encroacher. Consequently, it is argued that this may have serious constitutional implications.

 

For one, lack of authority for the deprivation that results may be unconstitutional because there is no law of general application that authorises the deprivation in terms of section 25(1). The creation of a servitude to explain the continued existence of the encroachment is not automatically included in the general discretion to replace removal with compensation. It is contended that an order that forces the affected landowner to register a servitude in favour of the encroacher to preserve the existing encroachment situation will be in conflict with section 25(1) as far as the common law does not authorise such an order. Furthermore, an order creating a servitude against the affected landowner’s will need to be separately justified in terms of the non-arbitrariness requirement in section 25(1). In this respect, the order will be unjustified and therefore arbitrary on both a general and personal level.

 

Although this decision eliminates the enduring problem in encroachment law concerning the rights of the respective parties to the affected land where encroachments are not removed, it is reasoned in this note that the solving of this problem may have created another one. The decision is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, in so far as the court has attempted to provide clarity in terms of the rights to the encroached-upon land. However, the absence of authority either in terms of the common law or legislation to create a servitude in this context, indicates that courts should avoid orders of this nature because of their implications. If legislation is enacted to regulate building encroachments, it may be useful to explain what happens when the encroachment is not removed and it may also provide the required law of general application to prevent constitutional infringement. The legislation should specify the nature of the right acquired by the encroacher, which in the South African context should probably be a servitude created against the affected landowner’s property. This may ensure that the required authority exists for the creation of the servitude and would also provide the necessary justification to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of property. It is accordingly submitted that the unnecessary confusion that results from the inability to explain the outcome (or provide sufficient reason) on the one hand, and the possible constitutional infringement due to the lack of authority on the other, may therefore be cleared up by the suggested legislation.

  

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Bibliography

Badenhorst, Pienaar and Mostert Silberberg & Schoeman

Badenhorst PJ, Pienaar JM and Mostert H Silberberg & Schoeman's The Law of Property 5th ed (Butterworths Durban 2006)

Boggenpoel 2012 Stell LR

Boggenpoel ZT "The discretion of courts in encroachment disputes [Discussion of Phillips v South African National Parks Board (4035/07) [2010] ZAECGHC 27 (22 April 2010)]" 2012 Stell LR 253-264

Boggenpoel 2013 THRHR

Boggenpoel ZT "Compulsory transfer of encroached-upon land: A constitutional analysis" 2013 THRHR 313-326

D 9 2 29 1

Corpus Juris Civilis (translated and edited by SP Scott The Civil Law: Including the Twelve Tables: The Institutes of Gaius. The Opinions of Paulus. The Enactments of Justinian. And the Constitutions of Leo (AMS New York 1973))

De Waal "Servitudes"

De Waal MJ "Servitudes" in Zimmerman R and Visser D (eds) Southern Cross: Civil law and Common law in South Africa (Clarendon Press Oxford 1996) Chapter 24

Gildenhuys Onteieningsreg

Gildenhuys A Onteieningsreg 2nd ed (Butterworths Durban 2001)

Grotius 2 36 5

De Groot H 1583-1645 Inleidinge tot de Hollandsche rechtsgeleertheyd (translated by RW Lee The jurisprudence of Holland (Clarendon Press Oxford 1926))

Hall Maasdorp's Institutes

Hall CG Maasdorp's Institutes of South African Law Vol 2: The Law of Property 10th ed (Juta Cape Town 1979)

Kiewitz Relocation of a Specified Servitude

Kiewitz LA Relocation of a Specified Servitude of Right of Way (LLM-thesis US 2010)

Milton 1969 Acta Juridica

Milton JRL "The law of neighbours in South Africa" 1969 Acta Juridica 123-244

Scott 2005 Stell LR

Scott S "Recent developments in case law regarding neighbour law and its influence on the concept of ownership" 2005 Stell LR 351-377

Temmers Building Encroachments

Temmers Z Building Encroachments and Compulsory Transfer of Ownership (LLD-dissertation US 2010)

Van den Heever Aquilian Damages

Van den Heever FP Aquilian Damages in South African Law (Juta Cape Town 1944)

Van der Merwe Sakereg

Van der Merwe CG Sakereg 2nd ed (Butterworths Durban 1989)

Van der Merwe and Cilliers 1994 THRHR

Van der Merwe CG and Cilliers JB "The 'year and a day rule' in South African law: Do our courts have the discretion to order damages instead of removal in the case of structural encroachments on neighbouring land?" 1994 THRHR 587-593

Van der Walt 2008 SALJ

Van der Walt AJ "Replacing property rules with liability rules: Encroachment by building" 2008 SALJ 592-628

Van der Walt 2012 Stell LR

Van der Walt AJ "Procedurally arbitrary deprivation of property" 2012 Stell LR 88-94

Van der Walt Constitutional Property Law

Van der Walt AJ Constitutional Property Law 3rd ed (Juta Cape Town 2011)

Van Leeuwen RDL 2 20 6

Van Leeuwen S 1625-1682 (edited and translated by CW Decker and JG Kotzé Commentaries on Roman-Dutch law 2nd ed (Sweet & Maxwell London 1921))

Voet 8 2 6

Voet J 1647-1713 Commentarius ad pandectas (translated by P Gane Commentary on the pandect (Butterworths Durban 1955-1958))

Wille Principles

Wille G Principles of South African law (Juta Cape Town 1937)

Register of case law

Adam v Abdoola 1903 24 NLR 158

Braunschweig Village Management Board v Frohbus 1938 EDL 25

Cape Town Municipality v Fletcher & Cartwrights, Ltd 1936 CPD 347

Christie v Haarhoff 1886-1887 4 HCG 349

Du Plessis v De Klerk 1996 3 SA 850 (CC)

First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service; First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Minister of Finance 2002 4 SA 768 (CC)

Frank and Co v Duveen 1919 CPD 299

Higher Mission School Trustees v Grahamstown Town Council 1924 EDL 354

Linvestment CC v Hammersley 2008 3 SA 283 (SCA)

Meyer v Keiser 1980 3 SA 504 (D)

Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality; Bisset v Buffulo City Municipality; Transfer Rights Action Campaign v Member of the Executive Council for Local Government and Housing, Gauteng 2005 1 SA 530 (CC)

Naudé v Bredenkamp 1956 2 SA 448 (O)

Nhlabathi v Fick 2003 2 All SA 323 (LCC)

Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd 2011 1 SA 293 (CC)

Phillips v South African National Parks Board 2010 ZAECGHC 27

Rand Waterraad v Bothma 1997 3 SA 120 (O)

Reflect-All 1025 CC v MEC for Public Transport Roads and Works, Gauteng Provincial Government 2009 6 SA 391 (CC)

Roseveare v Katmer, Katmer v Roseveare 2013 ZAGPJHC 18

S v Thebus 2003 6 SA 505 (CC)

Smith v Basson 1979 1 SA 559 (W)

Stark v Broomberg 1904 CTR 135

Trustees, Brian Lackey Trust v Annandale 2004 3 SA 281 (C)

Van Boom v Visser 1904 21 SC 360

Wade v Paruk 1904 25 NLR 219

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd 1984 1 WLR 798 (UK))

Register of legislation

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek) (Netherlands)

Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986

Published

17-05-2017

How to Cite

Boggenpoel, Z.-Z. T. (2017). Creating a Servitude to solve an Encroachment Dispute: A Solution or creating another Problem?. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 16(5), 454–486. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2013/v16i5a2441

Issue

Section

Notes