We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Edited by
Olaf Zenker, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany,Cherryl Walker, Stellenbosch University, South Africa,Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
This chapter focuses on the experience of two vulnerable women and explores whether the transformative thrust, ultimately embodied in the property clause, has become a lived reality or whether it has remained a theoretical concept only. Relevant here is the Extension of Security of Tenure Act with respect to Mrs Malan and Mrs Phillips, and the role and function of land ownership compared to the rights of these two vulnerable persons. Whereas Mrs Phillips was initially successful with her informal occupational right and opposed an eviction application effectively, the Constitutional Court finally found in favour of the landowner. The eviction application was set aside by the Land Claims Court with respect to Mrs Malan, but was reinstated on appeal. Ultimately, case law analysis indicates that the binary, hierarchical approach to land ownership and ‘lesser rights’ continues to dominate property paradigms. The transformative thrust of the property clause has remained elusive, despite measures promulgated specifically to protect vulnerable occupiers. The chapter provides some suggestions as to how changes within the land reform context and the re-conceptualisation of property law may be approached. Ultimately, a transformed property system – in light of South Africa’s colonial and apartheid history – is also in the public interest.
Edited by
Olaf Zenker, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany,Cherryl Walker, Stellenbosch University, South Africa,Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
‘Expropriation without compensation’ has crystallised in South African discourse into a symbolic rejection of inherited privilege, with calls for a constitutional amendment that presupposes a legal constraint on the property regime. The intentions of the lawmakers in the ‘property clause’ debates of the 1990s were to craft what I term a ‘mandate for transformation’. Yet the state has failed to override property owner interests in favour of the landless. Second, the battle over ‘expropriation without compensation’ since 2018 has not been about what is written in the Constitution. Third, the counterpoint to the fixation on state power to acquire property is the right of citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. This under-developed idea languishing within the property clause offers the basis for constitutional claims for a right to land. Inverting attention from state powers to enact reform to citizens’ powers to claim rights, it could serve as a focal point for emancipatory politics grounded in real struggles.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.