Differences Between Expropriation And Deprivation Under South African Constitution

Section 25(1) no one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property. Deprivation restrict the owners use and enjoyment of property in public interest without necessarily taking property away. In deprivations the state interferences with the private property. Deprivation the state has limit the private rights, such deprivations do not require compensation. This is temporary taking of control over a property. Deprivations must be fair and serves the public in general. It protects individual against similar actions of other people. State boundaries of private property are permitted by deprivation clause, provided these limitations occur in accordance with due to process of the law, serve the public welfare and that there is sufficient reason for them. Deprivations can be arbitrary or normal. When there are being arbitrary is when they affect one person not the public in general. Normal deprivations acquires the property for public use. In the case In first national bank of SA limited v minister of finance the court concluded that of property is arbitrary when the law that is referred to section does not provide sufficient reasons for the deprivation or limitation. Expropriation clause sector 25(2) state that a possessions may be confiscated only in terms of universal presentation.

• For community tenacity and community attention
• Question to reward and the time and manner of payment of which have either been decided to by those pretentious or decided or accepted by a court.

Section 25(3) state that the amount of the compensation and the time and the manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected. Expropriation takes a things missing from the owner for civic interest. Reimbursement is rewarded for expropriation only as it spaces the problem on individual only, but for mutual advantage of every person. In expropriation the government does not simply control or restrict the practice of property but acquires the property for community usage of property. For example, expropriating for building a dam because the state acquires that property for public use it expected that the owner’s loss shall be compensated.

Cristisims that have been levelled against the manner in which the CC defined expropriation

Land consification will trigger quickened cash cheapening, slow down remote and residential speculation streams, drive the financial development rate downwards. Crictism is levelled against the meaning of property in the bill that states property is "as thought about in segment 25 of the Constitution". This simply demonstrates property has a more extensive importance than the private law property idea that for the most part confines property to substantial property. The bill in this manner leaves the meaning of property to the courts. This check enables enough adaptability for the bill to be important in the following couple of decades (steadiness), as the idea of property will change if the previous 40 years or so are anything to pass by. The bill adjusts seizure to the Constitution. Expropriation it will alter the state to position land in its berth, taking it outside the realm of personal property while not payment of compensation, amounting to "expropriation while not compensation".

Conclusion

Government must take sensible legislative measures, within its accessible capitals, to nurture circumstances which permit inhabitants to have admission to land on an equitable basis. Parliament should refrain from passing the bill of expropriating land without compensation since it is threat to international ties with legal uncertainty attached and violation of human rights in terms of property rights.