Baphiring Community v Uys and Others (LCC64/1998) [2010] ZALCC 1; 2010 (3) SA 130 (LCC) ; [2010] 3 All SA 353 (LCC) (19 January 2010)

Baphiring Community v Uys and Others (LCC64/1998) [2010] ZALCC 1; 2010 (3) SA 130 (LCC) ; [2010] 3 All SA 353 (LCC) (19 January 2010)

The Court found that restoration of the farm Rosmincol to the Baphiring Community is not feasible due to the substantial costs involved, the disruption to current landowners and agricultural production, and the lack of institutional, expert, and financial support necessary for successful resettlement. The evidence showed that the community would be forced to downgrade their living conditions and that the costs of acquisition and resettlement would far exceed available resources. The Court also noted the absence of successful resettlement projects in the province and the lack of capacity within the community to manage restored land. However, restoration of grave sites was found to be...

Citation
[2010] ZALCC 1
Parties
Applicant: Baphiring Community; Respondent: Matthys Johannes Uys and Others; Respondent: Department of Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 January 2010
Case Number
LCC64/1998
Procedural Posture
Land Claim Application / Feasibility of Restoration and Form of Restitution
Outcome
Restoration of the farm Rosmincol to the Baphiring Community is not feasible. Restoration of grave sites is feasible. The Baphiring Community is entitled to equitable redress, the form and extent of which will be decided at a subsequent hearing. No order as to costs.
Judges
MIA, A Gildenhuys, M Wiechers
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Feasibility of Restoration, Equitable Redress, Expropriation, Compensation for Dispossession, Community Resettlement
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Feasibility of Restoration Equitable Redress Expropriation Compensation for Dispossession +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baphiring Community

Applicant

Matthys Johannes Uys and Others

Respondent

Department of Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Claim Application / Feasibility of Restoration and Form of Restitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is restoration of the farm Rosmincol to the Baphiring Community feasible under section 33 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act?
  2. 2 What form of restitution is just and equitable in light of the compensation already received and current circumstances?
  3. 3 Should restoration of grave sites be ordered if restoration of the entire land is not feasible?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that restoration of the farm Rosmincol to the Baphiring Community is not feasible due to the substantial costs involved, the disruption to current landowners and agricultural production, and the lack of institutional, expert, and financial support necessary for successful resettlement. The evidence showed that the community would be forced to downgrade their living conditions and that the costs of acquisition and resettlement would far exceed available resources. The Court also noted the absence of successful resettlement projects in the province and the lack of capacity within the community to manage restored land. However, restoration of grave sites was found to be...

Court Disposition

Restoration of the farm Rosmincol to the Baphiring Community is not feasible. Restoration of grave sites is feasible. The Baphiring Community is entitled to equitable redress, the form and extent of which will be decided at a subsequent hearing. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Restoration of the farm Rosmincol to the Baphiring Community is not feasible, subject to restoration of grave sites.
  • Restoration of all grave sites of the Claimant Community is feasible; the manner of such restoration to be determined in a subsequent hearing.