South Africa Case Law

Royal Square Investments 330 (Pty) Ltd v Premier, Western Cape and Another (A142/2020)

Royal Square Investments 330 (Pty) Ltd v Premier, Western Cape and Another (A142/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 68; [2021] 3 All SA 205 (WCC) (20 April 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A142/2020

Judges

Binns-Ward, Samela, Papier

The court held that the mere proclamation of a public road under the Divisional Councils Ordinance 1952 does not result in automatic expropriation or vesting of ownership in the road authority; actual acquisition requires a further act, such as purchase or expropriation, accompanied by compensation. Regulation 38 of the LUPO regulations is not applicable to land reserved for a proclaimed road, as its scheme is irreconcilable with the Roads Ordinance and Expropriation Act, which regulate the acquisition and compensation for land required for road purposes. The appellant failed to allege that t…

Source excerpt

• Road Proclamation
• Constructive Expropriation
• Lupon Regulation 38
• Compensation For Expropriation
• Property Clause Interpretation
• Statutory Interpretation

Conforth Investments (Pty) Ltd v Ethekwini Municipality (21593/2004)

Conforth Investments (Pty) Ltd v Ethekwini Municipality (21593/2004) [2013] ZAKZDHC 68 (28 November 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

21593/2004

Judge

Lopes

The court dismissed a claim for compensation over a road servitude, holding there was no compensable deprivation, expropriation, or constructive expropriation.

• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Expropriation
• Constructive Expropriation
• Servitude Registration
• Municipal Control Of Public Roads
• Arbitrary-deprivation-of-property

Steinberg v South Peninsula Municipality (520/99)

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

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

520/99

Judges

Hefer, Harms, Mpati, Cloete, Brand

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 exprop…

Source excerpt

• Property Clause
• Expropriation
• Deprivation Of Property
• Constructive Expropriation
• Compensation
• Road Schemes