History on trial: a study of the Salem commonage land claim
- Authors: Bezuidenhout, GJW
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: South Africa. Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 , Salem (South Africa) -- History , Land tenure -- Law and legilstion -- South Africa , Land reform -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/146647 , vital:38545
- Description: This thesis critically examines the Salem commonage claim, a dispute that has shaken the hamlet of Salem to its core. On ground level it has caused racialized fault lines to reopen, while suspicion and distrust has also grown between the black Africans of the area as well. On a national level, the Constitutional Court judgement has potentially set a precedent with regards to its jurisprudential approach in determining the validity of land claims in South Africa. Its interpretation of the law was determined by the restorative justice jurisprudence enshrined in the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (the Act). It based its own understanding of the history of the commonage on this jurisprudence. In a bold step towards realising the aims and purposes of the Act, the Constitutional Court found that both the black African claimants as well as the white landowners have equal rights to the land. One of the reasons why the decision of the Constitutional Court is ground-breaking is that the dispute involves a former commonage – land used for common purpose. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the Act was an “extraordinary piece of legislation” and had to be interpreted in such a way so as to address the injustices of the past. This included provisions of the Act which dealt with how oral testimonies from claimants would be dealt with. Another interesting feature was the heavy reliance by all parties on expert witnesses in the persons of eminent historians, Professors Martin Legassick and Herman Giliomee. This case gave much-needed clarification as to what the appropriate role of an expert historian witness may be in a land claim. The success or failure of land claims often depend on the weight of the evidence supplied by the expert historian witness. But the historian must also take cognisance of the fact that the evidence s/he gives is appropriate according to the scope of law. This case also dismisses the assumption that colonial instruments of land assignation are beyond reproach. These instruments which grant rights to land may also be scrutinised in a court of law, just like when oral testimony is tested for its credibility. This is important to note, especially when balancing land rights of the claimants against those of the landowners. This thesis agrees with the decision taken by the Constitutional Court in this instance. However, it also cautions that such softly-softly approaches may appear as a suitable compromise on paper, but the feeling on the ground may not be as receptive to reconciliation as what the courts would have hoped for. To the jurist, this judgement accurately encapsulates the purpose and aims of the Act. However, such a judgement may not seem satisfactory to the people of Salem. The decisions of the Salem commonage case are sure to inform the discourse of land claims in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Bezuidenhout, GJW
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: South Africa. Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 , Salem (South Africa) -- History , Land tenure -- Law and legilstion -- South Africa , Land reform -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/146647 , vital:38545
- Description: This thesis critically examines the Salem commonage claim, a dispute that has shaken the hamlet of Salem to its core. On ground level it has caused racialized fault lines to reopen, while suspicion and distrust has also grown between the black Africans of the area as well. On a national level, the Constitutional Court judgement has potentially set a precedent with regards to its jurisprudential approach in determining the validity of land claims in South Africa. Its interpretation of the law was determined by the restorative justice jurisprudence enshrined in the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (the Act). It based its own understanding of the history of the commonage on this jurisprudence. In a bold step towards realising the aims and purposes of the Act, the Constitutional Court found that both the black African claimants as well as the white landowners have equal rights to the land. One of the reasons why the decision of the Constitutional Court is ground-breaking is that the dispute involves a former commonage – land used for common purpose. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the Act was an “extraordinary piece of legislation” and had to be interpreted in such a way so as to address the injustices of the past. This included provisions of the Act which dealt with how oral testimonies from claimants would be dealt with. Another interesting feature was the heavy reliance by all parties on expert witnesses in the persons of eminent historians, Professors Martin Legassick and Herman Giliomee. This case gave much-needed clarification as to what the appropriate role of an expert historian witness may be in a land claim. The success or failure of land claims often depend on the weight of the evidence supplied by the expert historian witness. But the historian must also take cognisance of the fact that the evidence s/he gives is appropriate according to the scope of law. This case also dismisses the assumption that colonial instruments of land assignation are beyond reproach. These instruments which grant rights to land may also be scrutinised in a court of law, just like when oral testimony is tested for its credibility. This is important to note, especially when balancing land rights of the claimants against those of the landowners. This thesis agrees with the decision taken by the Constitutional Court in this instance. However, it also cautions that such softly-softly approaches may appear as a suitable compromise on paper, but the feeling on the ground may not be as receptive to reconciliation as what the courts would have hoped for. To the jurist, this judgement accurately encapsulates the purpose and aims of the Act. However, such a judgement may not seem satisfactory to the people of Salem. The decisions of the Salem commonage case are sure to inform the discourse of land claims in South Africa.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
Land, Church, Forced Removals and Community on Klipfontein Farm in the District of Alexandria, Eastern Cape c. 1872 - 1979
- Authors: Bezuidenhout, GJW
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Janse van Rensburg family , Klipfontein Farm (Alexandria, South Africa) , Alexandria (South Africa) -- History , Colored people (South Africa) -- History , Colored people (South Africa) -- Religion , Colored people (South Africa) -- Relocation , Black people -- Relocation -- South Africa -- Eastern Cape , Family farms -- South Africa -- Eastern Cape , Church history -- South Africa -- Eastern Cape , Land tenure -- Law and legilstion -- South Africa , Land reform -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/161315 , vital:40615
- Description: This thesis is a case study of how church, land and dispossession of land has influenced identity formation of a coloured community in the Eastern Province, namely the Klipfontein community. Coloured history in the Eastern Province has largely been neglected. This study attempts to rectify such a lack of in-depth enquiry as it may lead to misinterpretations that may influence contemporary politics and identity formation. Through research based on primary sources, it is evident that the social landscape of Klipfontein Farm and the relationships between that community and surrounding black African and white communities have largely been shaped by the stipulations contained in the joint will of the community’s ancestors: Dirk and Sarah Janse van Rensburg. The land devolved into a trust and has been administered by trustees since the death of the first spouse in 1877. By keeping the land in a trust, it enabled the descendants to continue to live on the farm in perpetuity, without the risk of being forced off the land via financial restraints or racially-based legislation. But the usufructuaries could also never fully utilise Klipfontein as an agricultural concern due to a combination of a lack of equipment and skill, and the provisions of the will. These complications inevitably led to inter-familial disputes and tension. Before 1939 there had already been three court cases dealing with the interpretations of the Will. In that same year the Supreme Court ordered that tracts of the land, including a part of Boesmansriviermond village, be sold in order to pay off arrear rates and taxes. Although the responsibility for these sales lay with the trustees, the community has been suspicious of the usufructuaries ever since. A key element of the Klipfontein identity is their religion. The church legitimises their right to the farm - against those who wish to take that right away. Their claim to occupation is couched in scriptural discourse, viewing Klipfontein as 'their Garden of Eden' that God gave to the stamvader, Dirk Janse van Rensburg. This seemed to have been partially successful for the Klipfontein community in staving off harassment by authorities. It also caused friction between the community and the black African residents. Some usufructuaries and family members felt that such right was exclusively given to the coloured community and so they became increasingly annoyed by the black Africans who settled there. Other usufructuaries did not share this feeling. They allowed evicted black African farm labourers to settle on certain portions of Klipfontein until the late 1970s. The black African population rapidly increased due to misinformation and evictions from neighbouring farms. This only further exacerbated the inter-familial conflict between usufructuaries, flaring tensions between the black Africans and their reluctant hosts as well as animosity from the white community towards Klipfontein. In 1979, after a series of court cases, a decision was made to remove all the African settlers by force and relocate most of them to the ‘homeland’ of Ciskei. The rest, who were of ‘working-age’ were left behind in a ‘temporary emergency camp’ on the outskirts of Kenton-on-Sea. The effects of these removals still impact the relationships between the different racial groups in the area to this day.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Bezuidenhout, GJW
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: Janse van Rensburg family , Klipfontein Farm (Alexandria, South Africa) , Alexandria (South Africa) -- History , Colored people (South Africa) -- History , Colored people (South Africa) -- Religion , Colored people (South Africa) -- Relocation , Black people -- Relocation -- South Africa -- Eastern Cape , Family farms -- South Africa -- Eastern Cape , Church history -- South Africa -- Eastern Cape , Land tenure -- Law and legilstion -- South Africa , Land reform -- Law and legislation -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: text , Thesis , Masters , MA
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/161315 , vital:40615
- Description: This thesis is a case study of how church, land and dispossession of land has influenced identity formation of a coloured community in the Eastern Province, namely the Klipfontein community. Coloured history in the Eastern Province has largely been neglected. This study attempts to rectify such a lack of in-depth enquiry as it may lead to misinterpretations that may influence contemporary politics and identity formation. Through research based on primary sources, it is evident that the social landscape of Klipfontein Farm and the relationships between that community and surrounding black African and white communities have largely been shaped by the stipulations contained in the joint will of the community’s ancestors: Dirk and Sarah Janse van Rensburg. The land devolved into a trust and has been administered by trustees since the death of the first spouse in 1877. By keeping the land in a trust, it enabled the descendants to continue to live on the farm in perpetuity, without the risk of being forced off the land via financial restraints or racially-based legislation. But the usufructuaries could also never fully utilise Klipfontein as an agricultural concern due to a combination of a lack of equipment and skill, and the provisions of the will. These complications inevitably led to inter-familial disputes and tension. Before 1939 there had already been three court cases dealing with the interpretations of the Will. In that same year the Supreme Court ordered that tracts of the land, including a part of Boesmansriviermond village, be sold in order to pay off arrear rates and taxes. Although the responsibility for these sales lay with the trustees, the community has been suspicious of the usufructuaries ever since. A key element of the Klipfontein identity is their religion. The church legitimises their right to the farm - against those who wish to take that right away. Their claim to occupation is couched in scriptural discourse, viewing Klipfontein as 'their Garden of Eden' that God gave to the stamvader, Dirk Janse van Rensburg. This seemed to have been partially successful for the Klipfontein community in staving off harassment by authorities. It also caused friction between the community and the black African residents. Some usufructuaries and family members felt that such right was exclusively given to the coloured community and so they became increasingly annoyed by the black Africans who settled there. Other usufructuaries did not share this feeling. They allowed evicted black African farm labourers to settle on certain portions of Klipfontein until the late 1970s. The black African population rapidly increased due to misinformation and evictions from neighbouring farms. This only further exacerbated the inter-familial conflict between usufructuaries, flaring tensions between the black Africans and their reluctant hosts as well as animosity from the white community towards Klipfontein. In 1979, after a series of court cases, a decision was made to remove all the African settlers by force and relocate most of them to the ‘homeland’ of Ciskei. The rest, who were of ‘working-age’ were left behind in a ‘temporary emergency camp’ on the outskirts of Kenton-on-Sea. The effects of these removals still impact the relationships between the different racial groups in the area to this day.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »