Steinberg v South Peninsula Municipality (520/99) [2001] ZASCA 93; 2001 (4) SA 1243 (SCA) (19 September 2001)

Steinberg v South Peninsula Municipality (520/99) [2001] ZASCA 93; 2001 (4) SA 1243 (SCA) (19 September 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the approval of a road scheme affecting the appellant's property did not amount to expropriation or constructive expropriation under section 25 of the Constitution. The scheme was merely advance notification of a possible intention to construct a road, which may never be implemented. The appellant was aware of the scheme when she purchased the property, and the limitations on her rights existed at the time of acquisition. There was no statutory or administrative action depriving her of her property, nor was there any obligation on the respondent to expropriate or compensate her. The doctrine of constructive expropriation, as developed in foreign...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 93
Parties
Appellant: GC Steinberg; Respondent: South Peninsula Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2001
Case Number
520/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Hefer, Harms, Mpati, Cloete, Brand
Legal Topics
Property Clause, Expropriation, Deprivation of Property, Constructive Expropriation, Compensation, Road Schemes
Constitutional Law Land and Property Property Clause Expropriation Deprivation of Property Constructive Expropriation Compensation Road Schemes

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GC Steinberg

Appellant

South Peninsula Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the approval of a road scheme amount to a constructive expropriation of property under section 25 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Is the appellant entitled to compel the respondent to complete the expropriation process or to expropriate the property?
  3. 3 Does advance notification of a possible future expropriation constitute a deprivation or expropriation requiring compensation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the approval of a road scheme affecting the appellant's property did not amount to expropriation or constructive expropriation under section 25 of the Constitution. The scheme was merely advance notification of a possible intention to construct a road, which may never be implemented. The appellant was aware of the scheme when she purchased the property, and the limitations on her rights existed at the time of acquisition. There was no statutory or administrative action depriving her of her property, nor was there any obligation on the respondent to expropriate or compensate her. The doctrine of constructive expropriation, as developed in foreign...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, which shall include the costs of two counsel.