https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/423 2026-08-06T23:41:58Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32884 The Obligation on Landowners to Accommodate ESTA Occupiers on their Land: Critically Analysing Daniels v Scribante 2017 4 SA 341 (CC) Ngwenyama, Lerato Rudolph In Daniels v Scribante (hereafter the Daniels case) the Constitutional Court had to decide whether: (a) the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) afforded Ms Daniels the right to make improvements to her dwelling; (b) if consent from the person in charge, Mr Scribante, was a requirement for Ms Daniels to make such improvements; and (c) if consent was not a requirement, if Ms Daniels could effect improvements to the total disregard of Mr Scribante. The judgment in Daniels is important not only because it paved the way for Ms Daniels to effect improvements on her existing dwelling without the consent of Mr Scribante, but also because it showed that under section 8(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter the Constitution) on the application of the Bill of Rights Mr Scribante owed a positive obligation to Ms Daniels to ensure that she lived in conditions that afforded her human dignity. In Daniels the Constitutional Court indicated that private landowners were enjoined by section 25(6) of the Constitution through ESTA to accommodate ESTA occupiers on their land. According to the Constitutional Court in Daniels, the nature of the obligation imposed by section 25(6) of the Constitution was both negative and positive, and in this particular case it rested on Mr Scribante. Against this background, this case note provides at the outset the salient facts and judgment of the Daniels case. This is followed by an analysis aimed at critiquing the judgment in Daniels pertaining to what is expected of private landowners in the new constitutional dispensation. It is concluded that more may be required from the private landowner - a positive duty - to ensure that ESTA occupiers enjoy fundamental rights. 2023-09-08T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32883 Access to Electricity for ESTA Occupiers: TM Sibanyoni and Sibanyoni Family v Van Der Merwe and Any Other Person in Charge of Farm 177, Vaal bank Portion 13 Hendrina, Mpumalanga (LCC 119/2020) [2021] ZALCC 33 (7 September 2021) Ngwenyama, Lerato Rudolph This case note highlights the importance of access to electricity for occupiers under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (hereafter ESTA). More importantly, the case note questions whose responsibility it is to provide ESTA occupiers with access to electricity on farmland. Moreover, it will comment on whether the Land Claims Court (hereafter LCC) got the decision right (or not). Furthermore, it provides a comment on whether the right to human dignity in section 5 of ESTA requires a dwelling on rural or peri-urban land to have access to electricity. It will also comment on whether the Sibanyoni judgment was progressive (or not) and why. The conclusion is that access to electricity is essential in modern life to enjoy adequate living conditions. A dwelling without electricity deprives an ESTA occupier of benefits such as utilising electric equipment, which is necessary for daily living. ESTA occupiers are unable to use stoves, which are crucial and safe for cooking. They are also not able to have lights, which are useful to deter criminality in their dwellings. Very importantly, ESTA occupiers' human dignity would be violated or denied to them by refusing to install electricity in their dwellings. The state therefore has a positive obligation to provide ESTA occupiers with access to electricity. Private landowners have only a negative obligation to refrain from impairing ESTA occupiers' right to access to electricity by not unreasonably refusing consent to have electricity installed by the state. The Sibanyoni judgment was progressive, among other reasons because it permitted an ESTA occupier to have electricity installed on his dwelling without the consent of the private landowner. 2023-11-23T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32882 The impact of COVID-19 and government mitigation regulations on attending customary initiation schools in South Africa Ngwenyama, Lerato Rudolph Initiations in South Africa ordinarily take place in June and December every year. However, initiations were suspended in March 2020 when South Africa went on national lockdown necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. The ban on initiations was only applicable at alert level two and five. At alert level one, the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (“COGTA”) issued a statement stating that initiations would remain suspended in an attempt to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and to save the lives of initiates. However, the Eastern Cape Province was an exception because initiation conductors made submissions to COGTA that they would comply with all health protocol measures. This paper evaluates the South African government’s legislative and regulatory response to the Covid-19 pandemic – especially in the context of customary practices such as initiation. In order to undertake an evaluation of the government’s legislative and regulatory response to the pandemic, the paper considers the following aspects: (1) which measures were put in place to regulate initiation schools; (2) were the measures due to governmental regulation or did initiation school conductors simply recognise the need to prevent the spread of Covid-19 by shutting down initiation schools; and (3) more importantly, what are the constitutional implications (if any) of the government’s legislative and regulatory response to the Covid-19 pandemic in terms of prohibiting initiation. The paper concludes that the government adopted far-reaching measures to prevent the spread of the Covid-19. These measures involved a restriction on the right to participate in cultural initiation. However, in a national state of disaster such as has been the case with the Covid-19, these measures are justifiable limitations of the right to enjoy cultural initiation. 2022-03-01T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32881 Examining the Requirement of Habitability under the South African Landlord-Tenant Framework Ngwenyama, Lerato Rudolph There are three rental housing sectors in South Africa, namely the private, the public, and the social sector. The private sector comprises the landlord–tenant relationship between purely private parties. The public sector comprises a rental relationship between low-income tenants and the state as public landlord, andthe social sector comprises a rental relationship between lower-income tenants and state-subsidised landlords. Private residential housing is regulated by the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 (RHA) and the common law. In terms of the common law, a landlord is obliged to place and maintain the property in a condition that is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was rented. The RHA is pending an amendment, which will expressly alter the common law and include the requirement of habitability in the landlord-tenant framework. In terms of the Rental Housing Amendment Act 35 of 2014 (RHAA), private-sector landlords will be required to provide tenants with a habitable dwelling and maintain the existing structure of such a dwelling in a habitable condition for the duration of the lease. “Habitability” in the RHAA refers to a dwelling that is safe and suitable to live in and has adequate space, protection from the elements and other threats to health, ensures the physical safety of the tenant, the tenant’s household and visitors, and is structurally sound. The RHAA defines “maintenance” as including such repairs and upkeep as may be required to ensure that a dwelling is in a habitable condition. Conversely, public residential housing does not fall under the ambit of the RHA, but it is regulated under a different framework, the National Housing Code of 2009 (NHC), whilesocial rental housing is regulated under the Social Housing Act 16 of 2008 (SHA). The research problem is that the NHC and SHA are not currently housed under the ambit of the RHA. Accordingly, this article aims to investigate where the NHC and SHA fit into the South African landlord-tenant framework, asregards the requirement of habitability. It is important to explore the concept of Ngwenyama2 habitability so as to paint a coherent, complete picture and delineate the scope of what constitutes habitability in respect of tenants’ rights in all three rental sectors. 2025-08-07T00:00:00Z