Minister of Public Works v Haffejee NO (373/94) [1996] ZASCA 17; 1996 (3) SA 745 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 355 (A); (25 March 1996)

Minister of Public Works v Haffejee NO (373/94) [1996] ZASCA 17; 1996 (3) SA 745 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 355 (A); (25 March 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the amendments introduced by the Expropriation Amendment Act 45 of 1992 were procedural in nature and did not impair any substantive right to compensation. The respondent did not have a vested right to have compensation determined by a compensation court, as procedural advantages do not constitute privileges protected by the Interpretation Act or common law. The amendments applied to claims for compensation arising before 1 May 1992 that had not yet been instituted in a compensation court, requiring such claims to be brought before the Supreme Court. The respondent's application to the compensation court after 1 May 1992 was therefore of no force and...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 17
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Public Works; Respondent: A I Haffejee N O
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 1996
Case Number
373/94
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The respondent's application to the compensation court is declared of no force and effect. Each party to pay their own costs in the court a quo.
Judges
Marais, Grosskopf, Smalberger, Vivier, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Expropriation, Retrospective Application of Statutes, Compensation Court Jurisdiction, Interpretation Act, Vested Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Expropriation Retrospective Application of Statutes Compensation Court Jurisdiction Interpretation Act Vested Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Public Works

Appellant

A I Haffejee N O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Expropriation Amendment Act 45 of 1992 applies retrospectively to claims for compensation arising before 1 May 1992 but not yet instituted in a compensation court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had a vested right to have compensation determined by a compensation court after the amendments.
  3. 3 Whether the application issued out of the compensation court after 1 May 1992 was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the amendments introduced by the Expropriation Amendment Act 45 of 1992 were procedural in nature and did not impair any substantive right to compensation. The respondent did not have a vested right to have compensation determined by a compensation court, as procedural advantages do not constitute privileges protected by the Interpretation Act or common law. The amendments applied to claims for compensation arising before 1 May 1992 that had not yet been instituted in a compensation court, requiring such claims to be brought before the Supreme Court. The respondent's application to the compensation court after 1 May 1992 was therefore of no force and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The respondent's application to the compensation court is declared of no force and effect. Each party to pay their own costs in the court a quo.

Orders

  • It is declared that the application issued out of the compensation court under case no 2267/92 in the matter between the respondent and the applicant is of no force and effect by virtue of the provisions of the Expropriation Amendment Act 45 of 1992.
  • The declarator sought by the applicant in prayer 1.3 of the Notice of Motion is refused.