Ash and Others v Department of Land Affairs (LCC116/98) [2000] ZALCC 54 (10 March 2000)

Ash and Others v Department of Land Affairs (LCC116/98) [2000] ZALCC 54 (10 March 2000)

The court found that the claimants who received less than market value at the time of dispossession are entitled to restitution in the form of monetary compensation, calculated as the difference between the compensation actually received and the amount which would have been just and equitable at the time, escalated to present value using agreed consumer price index factors. The court rejected the applicants' expert valuation as unreliable and accepted the respondent's expert evidence and agreed facts. Claims where entitlement or descendancy was not proven were dismissed. The court held that subjective hardship or sociological impact cannot justify upward adjustment of compensation absent...

Citation
[2000] ZALCC 54
Parties
Applicant: Ash and Others; Respondent: Department of Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2000
Case Number
LCC116/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims for monetary compensation were granted where under-compensation was proven; other claims were dismissed or postponed for further evidence or amendment.
Judges
Gildenhuys, Goldblatt
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Just and Equitable Compensation, Group Areas Act Dispossession, Market Value Assessment, Onus of Proof, Monetary Compensation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Just and Equitable Compensation Group Areas Act Dispossession Market Value Assessment Onus of Proof +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ash and Others

Applicant

Department of Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are entitled to restitution under the Restitution of Land Rights Act for dispossession under Group Areas legislation.
  2. 2 Whether compensation received at the time of dispossession was just and equitable as contemplated by section 25(3) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 How market value and other relevant factors should be determined for compensation purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants who received less than market value at the time of dispossession are entitled to restitution in the form of monetary compensation, calculated as the difference between the compensation actually received and the amount which would have been just and equitable at the time, escalated to present value using agreed consumer price index factors. The court rejected the applicants' expert valuation as unreliable and accepted the respondent's expert evidence and agreed facts. Claims where entitlement or descendancy was not proven were dismissed. The court held that subjective hardship or sociological impact cannot justify upward adjustment of compensation absent...

Court Disposition

Claims for monetary compensation were granted where under-compensation was proven; other claims were dismissed or postponed for further evidence or amendment.

Orders

  • Claim 1: Andrew Ash awarded R32,583.24.
  • Claim 3: Elizabeth Maria Chauky awarded R5,673.00.