Relocation of a specified servitude of right of way

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Traditionally, the common law rule as interpreted by South African case law required that mutual consent be obtained in order to relocate a specified servitude of right of way. Since the Linvestment judgment, the legal position pertaining to the unilateral relocation of a specified servitude of right of way is that the location of an existing specified servitude of right of way may be altered unilaterally by the owner of the servient tenement. Unilateral relocation of a specified servitude of right of way will only be allowed if strict requirements are met, namely that the servient owner will be materially inconvenienced in the use of his property if the status quo is maintained; that the relocation will not prejudice the owner of the dominant tenement; and that the servient owner pays all costs incurred in the relocation of the servitude.In order to justify the departure from the common law, the court in Linvestment relied on historical argument, comparative law, and policy arguments to reach the conclusion that a servitude may be relocated unilaterally if it is in the interest of fairness, equity and justice. The court relied on section 173 of the Constitution, which entitles the courts to develop the common law.This decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal has far-reaching implications. A servitude is a limited real right to the property of another person which grants the holder of that right specific entitlements. South African law requires that registration in the deeds registry take place in terms of section 63(1) of the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937 as soon as a limited real right in immovable property is created or transferred. Once the servitude is registered, it will be enforceable against the owner of the servient tenement and all his successors in title. When the servient owner is allowed to relocate the servitude unilaterally, it will have the effect of undermining the limited real right that the dominant owner holds in the property in question.This thesis evaluates the extent to which the courts may change common law principles on the basis of fairness, justice and equity. The conclusion is that the policy grounds on which the court based its decision are convincing, as the law cannot remain rigid and needs to be continually changed in order to meet changing conditions. However, the comparative and historical reasons provided for the decision are insubstantial and unconvincing. The thesis points out that there are no historical grounds for the decision, but that more extensive and contextual comparative research does support the decision. This thesis considers the constitutional implications of a flexible legal approach to the unilateral relocation of a specified servitude of right of way and concludes that an approach that allows for unilateral relocation will not amount to an expropriation and will not establish an arbitrary deprivation either, provided that the requirements set out in the decision are applied strictly and that a court order is required for the relocation.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University