Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

186
die leerstuk van estoppel maak nie inbreuk op die bepalings van die Grondwet nie.
Die blatante toepassing van estoppel, veral waar dit strek tot voordeel van die
owerheidsorgaan om sy negering van statutêre voorskrifte na te kom of goed te
keur, druis wel in teen die bepalings van die Handves van Menseregte en die gees
van die Grondwet.
Die verweerder is benadeel deur die eiser se voorstelling om nie die nodige heffings
betyds te verhaal nie. Die hof is deeglik bewus van hierdie benadeling en stel dit
soos volg :
“To permit the plaintiff to take advantage of the established rule against the
raising of an estoppel, where there was no alleged or minimal countervailing
benefit to the plaintiff, would be inconsistent with the entrenched constitutional
value of reasonable public administration. To allow the plea of estoppel in the
limited and peculiar circumstances of the present case would prevent hardship
and injustice and give content to the object of the Constitution and the basic
values underlying it. Estoppel was after all an equitable doctrine which was
pertinently concerned with questions of fairness in particular contests. One of
its functions was to protect relationships of trust and confidence in the sense
that it would hold parties to their representation to one another where there had
been detrimental reliance.” 392
Uit hierdie beslissing is dit duidelik dat die privaatregtelike leerstuk van estoppel wel
ter sprake gebring kan word teen ʼn owerheidsorgaan, veral waar hy nie die statutêre
verpligting wat opgelê word na behore uitvoer nie en sodanige negering vir die
onderdaan in die publiekregtelike verhouding benadeel. 393
Is die Handves van Menseregte van toepassing op die privaatreg? Wat sê die
buitelandse reg hieroor?
In Duitsland, die Verenigde State van Amerika en Kanada is daar verskeie
grondwetlike bepalings toegepas om alternatiewe vir die direkte toepassing van die
Grondwet op die privaatreg daar te stel.
In Duitsland is die siening van die regbank en skrywers dat regte vervat in die
Handves van Menseregte slegs indirek op die gebied van die privaatreg toegepas
kan word. Die argument word geopper dat die Grondwet nie ʼn uitdruklike bepaling
bevat wat vereis dat die Handves van Menseregte op privaat verhoudings toegepas
392 2001(4) SA 661 (WLD) by 665.
393 2001(4) SA 661 (WLD) By bladsy 665 E-F beslis die hof soos volg: “Further, that the facts of the present case called for an indirect application of the
fundamental rights provision embodied in the Constitution. The degree of development of the common law that was required was of a limited nature. What
was required is not a setting aside of common law rule but an incremental change in its application, necessary to ensure that the underlying values and
objectives of the Constitution were achieved. Instead of permitting a barrier to the raising of estoppel against a public authority exercising public power, the
common law had to be developed to emphasise the equitable nature of estoppel, and its function as a rule allocating the incidence of loss. (Paragraph (40)
at 685 F-H) The exception on the estoppel issue was dismissed.”