Pienaar and Others v Minister of Rural Development And Land Reform (LCC 28/2011) [2015] ZALCC 9 (8 November 2015)

Pienaar and Others v Minister of Rural Development And Land Reform (LCC 28/2011) [2015] ZALCC 9 (8 November 2015)

The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation, undue influence, or duress by the defendants or their officials. The evidence showed that the revised compensation offers fell within the range of market-related values and were not grossly inadequate. The plaintiffs, being experienced...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZALCC 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Getruida Susanna Pienaar; Plaintiff: Dorothea Botha; Plaintiff: Hannelie Botha; Plaintiff: Aletta Louise van de Walt; Plaintiff: Cornelius Johannes van de Walt; Defendant: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Defendant: Chief Land Claims Commissioner of South Africa; Defendant: Regional Land Claims Commissioner for the Province of Mpumalanga
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2015
Case Number
LCC 28/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
Judges
MP Canca
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Just and Equitable Compensation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Expropriation, Legitimate Expectation
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Restitution of Land Rights Act Just and Equitable Compensation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Undue Influence Expropriation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Getruida Susanna Pienaar

Plaintiff

Dorothea Botha

Plaintiff

Hannelie Botha

Plaintiff

Aletta Louise van de Walt

Plaintiff

Cornelius Johannes van de Walt

Plaintiff

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Defendant

Chief Land Claims Commissioner of South Africa

Defendant

Regional Land Claims Commissioner for the Province of Mpumalanga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs were fraudulently induced to accept compensation below market value for their farms.
  2. 2 Whether undue influence or duress was exerted on the plaintiffs by officials of the third defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation paid constituted just and equitable compensation as envisaged by Section 25 of the Constitution and the Restitution of Land Rights Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation, undue influence, or duress by the defendants or their officials. The evidence showed that the revised compensation offers fell within the range of market-related values and were not grossly inadequate. The plaintiffs, being experienced and intelligent individuals, were not in a position of extreme need or weakness and could have refused to sign the revised offers or sought independent advice. The sale agreements were voluntary and did not constitute expropriation or compulsory acquisition by the State. The Court held that Section 25 of the Constitution and the Restitution of Land Rights Act do not require a...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.