Florence v The Government of the Republic of South Africa (550/12) [2013] ZASCA 104 (13 September 2013)

Florence v The Government of the Republic of South Africa (550/12) [2013] ZASCA 104 (13 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court did not misdirect itself in applying the CPI to determine changes in the value of money for compensation purposes. The CPI is an official government statistic, and its use has been confirmed by precedent as an appropriate method for adjusting compensation under the Restitution Act. The appellant's argument that compensation should reflect investment returns was rejected, as restitution is aimed at redressing historical injustice, not commercial gain. The court further found that the Land Claims Court erred in refusing to order the state to pay for the memorial plaque, as the agreement with the property owner did not waive the...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 104
Parties
Appellant: Isabel Joyce Florence; Respondent: The Government of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2013
Case Number
550/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal partly upheld and partly dismissed.
Judges
Nugent, Malan, Tshiqi
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Compensation for Dispossession, Judicial Discretion, Costs Award, Solatium, Memorial Plaque
Land and Property Constitutional Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Compensation for Dispossession Judicial Discretion Costs Award Solatium Memorial Plaque

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isabel Joyce Florence

Appellant

The Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Land Claims Court exercised its discretion judicially in applying the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to determine changes in the value of money for compensation purposes.
  2. 2 Whether the state should be ordered to pay the costs of erecting a memorial plaque on the property.
  3. 3 Whether the award of costs in the Land Claims Court was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court did not misdirect itself in applying the CPI to determine changes in the value of money for compensation purposes. The CPI is an official government statistic, and its use has been confirmed by precedent as an appropriate method for adjusting compensation under the Restitution Act. The appellant's argument that compensation should reflect investment returns was rejected, as restitution is aimed at redressing historical injustice, not commercial gain. The court further found that the Land Claims Court erred in refusing to order the state to pay for the memorial plaque, as the agreement with the property owner did not waive the...

Court Disposition

Appeal partly upheld and partly dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against paragraph 1 of the order of the Land Claims Court is dismissed.
  • The appeal against paragraph 2 of the order of the Land Claims Court is upheld; paragraph 2 is set aside and substituted with an order that the second defendant pay the cost incurred in erecting a memorial plaque, limited to R50,000.