2020 volume 1 p 103

Date03 February 2020
Published date03 February 2020
RECONSIDERI NG COUNTER-SPOLI ATION AS A COMMON-LAW REMEDY 103
[ISSN 0257 – 7747] TSAR 2020
. 1
RECONSIDERING COUNTER-SPOLIATION AS A COMMON-LAW
REMEDY IN THE EVICTION CONTEXT IN VIEW OF THE SINGLE-
SYSTEM-OF-LAW PRINCIPLE
A reply to Scott’s discussion of Residents of Setjwetla Inform al Settlement v
Johannesburg City 2017 2 SA 516 (GJ)*
1 Introduction
After 25 years of democracy, landlessness remains a major problem in South Africa,
as millions of people still do not have access t o adequate housing. Thi s inevitably
causes persons, who act eithe r out of necessity or, sometimes, for more questionable
reasons (such as to make political stateme nts), to occupy the land of others (see,
* We are indebted to Prof Michelman for fruitful correspondence regarding key aspects of the case
note. The authors co-presented this contribution as a paper at the Private Law and Social Justice
Conference, held at Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, 19-20 August 2019. Thanks are due
to the conference participants for helpful comments. A word of thanks also goes to the participants of
the monthly property law reading session at the University of Pretoria for their constructive feedback.
Ms Van der Merwe and Ms Makaya provided research assistance. Muller (ORCID: 0000-0003-1254-
6601) received funding from the Research Development Programme at the University of Pretoria that
made this research possible and Marais (ORCID: 0000-0003-2840-2653) expresses his gratitude to the
National Research Foundation for providing nancial support that made research for this contribution
possible. Remaining errors are our own.
2020 TSAR 103
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
TSAR 2020
. 1 [ISS N 0257 – 7747]
104 MULLER AN D MARAIS
for instance, htt ps://ewn.co.za/ Topic/Illegal-la nd-invasion s (28-08-2019)). Despite
the desperate plight of these per sons, and the motivations behi nd these intr usions,
the law cannot (and does not) condone such conduct (s 3 of the Prevention of
Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of L and Act 19 of 1998). If land
occupations are not properly add ressed, they hold several danger s. These include
undermin ing the rule of law (s 1(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa, 1996) throug h subverting public order (Cramer and Moste rt “‘Home’ and
unlawful occ upation: the horns of local governme nt’s dilemma: Fischer v Persons
Unknown 2014 3 SA 291 (WCC)” 2013 Stell LR 583 584; Pre sident of the Republic
of South Africa v Modderk lip Boerdery (Pt y) Ltd 2005 5 SA 3 (CC) par 45),
infring ing the right of landowners aga inst arbitrar y deprivation of their prope rty
(s 25(1) of the constitution), and (perhaps most per tinently) frust rating the stat e’s
legitimate efforts to pr ovide housing on a planned basis under se ction 26(1) of the
constitution (Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 20 01 1 SA
46 (CC) par 92). The question is therefore how best to prevent – and discourage –
these occupations.
The answer to this que stion is twofold, namely which source of law governs such
intrusions, a nd whether the applicable source promotes the posit ive characteristics
the constitution envisions for all law. The common-law defence of counter-spoliation
(contra-spolie), like the mandament van spolie, discourages unlawf ul self-help by
permitti ng possessors to commit a reasonable measu re of lawful self-help to protect
their possession of propert y (see, for instance, Boggenpoel Property Remedies
(2017) 149-153; Badenhorst, Pienaar a nd Mostert Silberberg and Schoeman’s The
Law of Property (2006) 306 -308 and the sources they cite). Act 19 of 1998 brings
the applicability of this defence into que stion in cases where person s are in the
process of unlawfu lly occupying land to est ablish a home there. This is because
the act expressly excludes the common law when it comes to evict ing unlawfu l
occupiers from land they oc cupy as a home (s 4(1) of Act 19 of 1998, read with s
26(3) of the constitution). Landowners, both private and the stat e, must follow the
relevant procedure in th is act to evict such occupiers fr om land and may no longer
merely invoke the common law to obtain an evict ion order – whether actual or
construct ive. It thus has to be determ ined what the relationship be tween these two
sources of law is.
Several recent cases emphasise a very specic aspect of land occupations, namely
where persons are sti ll in the process of occupying la nd and where their possession
has thus not yet stabilised. Stat ed differently, here the intruder s are still in the process
of acquiring physical control of la nd but have not yet obtained it. The question is
whether Act 19 of 1998 governs such i nstances or whether owne rs are free to rely
on the defence of counter-spoliation to protect their possession. It is precisely this
latter possibility t hat Scott raises in his case note (“The preca rious position of a land
owner vis-à-vis unlawf ul occupiers: common-law remedies to t he rescue?” 2018
TSAR 158) on Residents of Setjwetla Informal Settleme nt v Johannesburg City 2017
2 SA 516 (GJ)). His contribution prompted us to wr ite this response.
Scott argues th at the Gauteng local division, Johanne sburg, in the Setjwetla case
erred by not consideri ng that the respondent’s demolition of the applicants’ informal
homes without a court order m ight have amounted to counter-spoliation, wh ich
is a lawful act. For reasons on which we elaborate i n more detail below, Scott’s
reasoning – in ter ms of the applicable common-law principles governi ng counter-
spoliation – cannot be faulted.
The normative aspect t hat underlies the question how land i ntrusions should be
prevented entails that the law mus t provide a speedy and effective mechan ism to
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT