Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others (62/2024) [2025] ZASCA 110 (23 July 2025)

Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others (62/2024) [2025] ZASCA 110 (23 July 2025)

The majority held that the property does not meet the exclusion criteria under section 1(a) of SALA, as it is not situated in an area where a local area committee was established, despite its inclusion in the Peri-Urban Town Planning Scheme. The Minister's refusal to consent to subdivision was based on the property's high agricultural potential and the need to preserve land for food security, which aligns with the purpose of SALA. However, the Minister failed to consult with the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, whose development plans and constitutional obligations could be thwarted by the decision. This failure constitutes a breach of constitutional duty and renders the decision...

Citation
[2025] ZASCA 110
Parties
Appellant: Tridevco (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Witfontein X16 Boerdery CC; Respondent: Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development; Respondent: Delegate of the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2025
Case Number
62/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld. Declaratory relief refused. Minister's decision set aside and referred back for reconsideration.
Judges
Nicholls, Unterhalter, Dawood, Vally, Norman
Legal Topics
Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Statutory Interpretation, Municipal Consultation, Constitutional Duties of Minister, Review of Administrative Action, Local Government Planning
Land and Property Administrative Law Constitutional Law Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act Statutory Interpretation Municipal Consultation Constitutional Duties of Minister Review of Administrative Action +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tridevco (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Witfontein X16 Boerdery CC

Appellant

Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development

Respondent

Delegate of the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property falls within the definition of 'agricultural land' under section 1(a) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970 (SALA).
  2. 2 Whether the Minister's refusal to consent to the subdivision of the property was rational and lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the Minister was required to consult with the municipality before making a decision affecting municipal planning and constitutional obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the property does not meet the exclusion criteria under section 1(a) of SALA, as it is not situated in an area where a local area committee was established, despite its inclusion in the Peri-Urban Town Planning Scheme. The Minister's refusal to consent to subdivision was based on the property's high agricultural potential and the need to preserve land for food security, which aligns with the purpose of SALA. However, the Minister failed to consult with the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, whose development plans and constitutional obligations could be thwarted by the decision. This failure constitutes a breach of constitutional duty and renders the decision...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld. Declaratory relief refused. Minister's decision set aside and referred back for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds in part.
  • The first respondent is to pay fifty percent of the costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.