Wollach N.O. and Another v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC120/2010) [2018] ZALCC 1 (15 January 2018)

Wollach N.O. and Another v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC120/2010) [2018] ZALCC 1 (15 January 2018)

The court found that the compensation paid to Hartebeeskraal Farm (Pty) Ltd at dispossession was just and equitable. The court preferred the valuation methodology and comparable sales selected by the State's expert, du Toit, over those of the plaintiffs' expert, van der Spuy. Du Toit's approach was more...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZALCC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: Abraham Lama Wollach N.O.; Plaintiff: Hartebeeskraal Farm (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Defendant: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Defendant: Commission on Restitution of Land Rights; Defendant: Regional Land Claims Commissioner
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 January 2018
Case Number
LCC 120/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; compensation paid at dispossession was just and equitable.
Judges
Canca, Nongalaza
Legal Topics
Restitution of Land Rights Act, Just and Equitable Compensation, Expropriation, Market Value Assessment, Section 25 Constitution, Expert Evidence Evaluation
Land and Property Constitutional Law Restitution of Land Rights Act Just and Equitable Compensation Expropriation Market Value Assessment Section 25 Constitution Expert Evidence Evaluation

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraham Lama Wollach N.O.

Plaintiff

Hartebeeskraal Farm (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Defendant

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Defendant

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Defendant

Regional Land Claims Commissioner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the compensation of R475 627.00 paid to the Company at dispossession just and equitable as contemplated by section 25(3) of the Constitution and section 2(2) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act?
  2. 2 If not, what is the additional amount of compensation to which the Company is entitled?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the compensation paid to Hartebeeskraal Farm (Pty) Ltd at dispossession was just and equitable. The court preferred the valuation methodology and comparable sales selected by the State's expert, du Toit, over those of the plaintiffs' expert, van der Spuy. Du Toit's approach was more comprehensive, relied on transactions within a reasonable proximity to the subject property, and properly distinguished between arable and grazing land. The court rejected the plaintiffs' comparators due to differences in size, location, and development potential. Applying the factors set out in section 25(3) of the Constitution and section 33 of the Restitution Act, the court concluded...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; compensation paid at dispossession was just and equitable.

Orders

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