It is common for insolvency legislation to interfere with the property rights of debtors, creditors and third parties in pursuit of its purpose to provide an orderly and fair resolution to insolvency‐related problems. However, the South African property clause, Section 25 of the Constitution, prohibits arbitrary interferences with vested property interests. In light of this, this article focuses on the application of Section 25 to insolvency law in South Africa. The question is whether interferences with property rights in terms of insolvency legislation qualify as deprivations of property for constitutional purposes and, if so, whether they comply with the relevant validity requirements. This article investigates this question by explaining the interaction between insolvency law and constitutional law in general, followed by a closer look at the application and operation of the property clause in particular. Thereafter, three examples from case law are discussed to illustrate the role of constitutional property law in evaluating the effects of insolvency legislation in South Africa. The conclusion is drawn that, as long as the relevant requirements are met, the norms underlying the property clause do not hinder the development and implementation of legitimate and necessary insolvency procedures that could impact on vested property rights.

中文翻译：

---

宪法宪法对南非破产法的影响

破产立法通常会干涉债务人，债权人和第三方的财产权，以追求其目的是为与破产有关的问题提供有序和公正的解决方案。但是，《南非财产》条款（《宪法》第25条）禁止对既得财产利益的任意干涉。有鉴于此，本文重点介绍第25条在南非破产法中的适用。问题是，就破产法而言，对财产权的干涉是否应视为出于宪法目的剥夺财产；如果是，则是否符合相关的有效性要求。本文通过解释破产法和宪法之间的相互作用来调查这个问题，然后再仔细研究property子句的应用和操作。此后，讨论了判例法的三个例子，以说明宪法财产法在评估南非破产法效力方面的作用。得出的结论是，只要满足相关要求，财产条款所依据的规范就不会阻碍可能影响既得财产权的合法和必要破产程序的发展和实施。