Uys N.O and Another v Msiza and Others (1222/2016) [2017] ZASCA 130; 2018 (3) SA 440 (SCA) (29 September 2017)

Uys N.O and Another v Msiza and Others (1222/2016) [2017] ZASCA 130; 2018 (3) SA 440 (SCA) (29 September 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that just and equitable compensation for the expropriated land must be determined by considering all relevant factors under section 25(3) of the Constitution, with market value as the starting point. The property was correctly valued as agricultural land at R1.8 million, as the Trust purchased the land with full knowledge of the labour tenant claim, which constituted a pre-existing impediment to development. The Pointe Gourde principle does not apply in these circumstances, as the depreciation in value was known and reflected in the purchase price. The Land Claims Court erred in deducting R300,000 from the market value without rational foundation, and...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 130
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Uys N.O; Appellant: Dirk Cornelius Uys N.O; Respondent: Msindo Phillemon Msiza; Respondent: Director General for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Minister for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Case Number
1222/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. The compensation payable to the Trust is increased to R1,800,000. Costs orders are made against the third respondent and the second respondent as specified.
Judges
Navsa, Cachalia, Seriti, Tsoka, Lamont
Legal Topics
Just and Equitable Compensation, Expropriation, Market Value Assessment, Labour Tenant Claims, Costs Award, Pointe Gourde Principle
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Just and Equitable Compensation Expropriation Market Value Assessment Labour Tenant Claims Costs Award +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Uys N.O

Appellant

Dirk Cornelius Uys N.O

Appellant

Msindo Phillemon Msiza

Respondent

Director General for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Minister for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the just and equitable compensation payable to the owner for land awarded to a labour tenant under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act?
  2. 2 Should the market value of the property reflect its developmental potential or be limited to agricultural use due to the pre-existing labour tenant claim?
  3. 3 Is the Pointe Gourde principle applicable where the purchaser was aware of the impediment at the time of purchase?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that just and equitable compensation for the expropriated land must be determined by considering all relevant factors under section 25(3) of the Constitution, with market value as the starting point. The property was correctly valued as agricultural land at R1.8 million, as the Trust purchased the land with full knowledge of the labour tenant claim, which constituted a pre-existing impediment to development. The Pointe Gourde principle does not apply in these circumstances, as the depreciation in value was known and reflected in the purchase price. The Land Claims Court erred in deducting R300,000 from the market value without rational foundation, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. The compensation payable to the Trust is increased to R1,800,000. Costs orders are made against the third respondent and the second respondent as specified.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The third respondent is to pay the first respondent’s costs and 70% of the appellants’ costs, including the costs of two counsel.