Meyer v Minister Of Agricultural And Land Affairs and Another (1572/09) [2002] ZAGPPHC 1 (22 May 2009)
The court found that the applicant had made every reasonable effort to engage the State in negotiations and to facilitate a fair determination of the property's value. The State failed to attend court or present any evidence, despite clear directions and opportunities. The applicant's expert valuer provided a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] ZAGPPHC 1
- Parties
- Applicant: Michael Maurice Meyer; Respondent: Minister of Agricultural and Land Affairs; Respondent: Regional Claims Commissioner Gauteng and North West
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 1572/09
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Court to Fix Purchase Price of Land and Order State to Purchase
- Outcome
- Application granted. The court fixed the purchase price at R38 million and ordered the State to purchase the property at that price.
- Judges
- Hartzenberg
- Legal Topics
- Land Claims, Compulsory Acquisition, Valuation of Property, Failure to Defend, Court Fixed Price
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Maurice Meyer
Applicant
Minister of Agricultural and Land Affairs
Respondent
Regional Claims Commissioner Gauteng and North West
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Court to Fix Purchase Price of Land and Order State to Purchase
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should fix the purchase price of the applicant's property for acquisition by the State.
- 2 Whether the valuation presented by the applicant is reasonable and fair to both parties.
- 3 Whether the State's failure to defend or participate justifies granting the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had made every reasonable effort to engage the State in negotiations and to facilitate a fair determination of the property's value. The State failed to attend court or present any evidence, despite clear directions and opportunities. The applicant's expert valuer provided a thorough and conservative assessment, considering comparable sales and improvements. The court determined that a value of R8,000 per hectare for 4,367.8 hectares, plus R3 million for improvements, amounted to a fair total of R38 million. The court amended the applicant's prayer to reflect this value and granted the application, ordering the State to purchase the property at the fixed...
Court Disposition
Application granted. The court fixed the purchase price at R38 million and ordered the State to purchase the property at that price.
Orders
- Order granted in terms of prayers 1 to 8 of the notice of motion, with prayer 1 amended to fix the price at R38 million instead of R43 million.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
CASE NO:1572/09
DATE: 2009-05-22
In the matter between
MICHAEL MAURICE MEYER Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL
AND LAND AFFAIRS First
Respondent
THE REGIONAL CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
GAUTENG AND NORTH WEST Second
Respondent
JUDGMENT
HARTZENBERG J This is a somewhat peculiar application. The applicant is the owner of seven properties in the Zeerust district. These properties as a unit have been transformed into a game farm. It abuts a game reserve. It has traversing rights of the reserve. There are considerable improvements on the property. There however are land claims in respect of the property and the State has decided to recognise the claims and acquire the property for that purpose. For a considerable period of a number of years already there has been a tug of war between the owner of the property and the State as to what the reasonable purchase price is for the property.
In this case it will appear as if the price of game farms increased fairly rapidly during the past few years. It is not strange because South Africa in that respect with a lot of people from overseas interested in acquiring these sort of properties is one of very few places in the world where you can still acquire such a property.
The applicant could not get an agreement with the respondents and brought an application. The application was properly served upon the respondents and when it served before me on 7 May this year, I caused it to stand down so that the respondents could attend court, because I realised that evidence was going to be led about the value of the property. The nature of the application is for this Court to place a value on the property and to order the State to enter into an agreement with the applicant to purchase the property at that price.
I caused the matter to stand down until 8 May and i was informed that on that day, by Mr Van den Bogert who appears for the applicant, that he made contact with the State Attorney and that the State Attorney indicated to him that it would be impossible to have their valuer available on 8 May. The matter was then postponed until today and I gave specific directions and caused the legal representatives of the applicant to inform the State Attorney that unless there is agreement between the parties before then, I will fix a value for the property today, but I also indicated that I would like the parties to have a round table conference a week before today, which was 15 May.
A letter was written to the State Attorney and the State Attorney, according to what Mr Van den Bogert informs me and according to the letters which I have seen, undertook to attend, but failed to- do so. Today there is no representation by the State Attorney, knowing full well that the matter will be before me or would have
been before me at ten o’clock today.
Thereafter Mr Van den Bogert led the evidence of Mr Stafford Leyds, a valuer, with considerable experience in the legal field who has made a valuation of the property. That they have gone to considerable trouble is clear if you read his valuation, which is to be found from pages 240 to about 262 of the papers. It is a peculiar field of valuation, but not only did he look at comparable sales in the area, he also compared properties in well known game areas as, for argument sake, close to the Kruger Park and places like Klasserie and Timbavati and then also in Limpopo and so forth. He came to a value per hectare of R9 000 arguing that he was very conservative, but the comparable properties which he took as a basis were all of an extent less than a thousand hectares. In this particular case we are dealing with property fenced off in excess of 4 000, i.e. 4 367,8 hectares. What he then did was to add the value of the improvements to it. He says that as far as the comparable transactions are concerned he made an adjustment for the improvements and that that is why he brought down the average price of R11 000 to R9 000.
In the end I have got to value the property and I am thankful for the advice given to the Court by Mr Leyds. In the process I have got to be fair to the applicant on the one hand but also to the State on the other hand who after all has got to pay the purchase price. In my view it would be fair to place a value of R8 000 per hectare on the property. That comes to a total of just under R35 million, which I will round off to R35 million, but this property is very well improved with buildings and dams, etcetera, and the value which was placed upon that by Mr Leyds comes to in excess of R3 million, R3.6 million roughly. That I will round off to R3 million and if I add that to the price for the bare land of R35 million, it gives a total of R38 million. That in my view is a reasonable valuation for the property and in those circumstances the State having failed to defend the matter, I am inclined to grant the application.
In the application, prayer 1, I was asked to fix the price at
R43 miilion. i have changed that to an amount of R38 million, which I have just explained how I reached it.
ORDER
1. In the circumstances I grant an order in terms of prayers 1 to 8 of the notice of motion, prayer 1 having been amended, in that the figure of R43 million was changed to R38 million.
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT : ADV D VAN DEN BOGERT
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS : [NOT PRESENT]