Welverdiend Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC75/2009) [2025] ZALCC 4 (14 January 2025)
Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC 75/2009
Judge
S Yacoob
The Land Claims Court awarded the Welverdiend Community monetary compensation and a nominal solatium for dispossession, while rejecting special damages and limiting fees.
Shah and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC93/2014) [2024] ZALCC 41 (6 December 2024)
Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC93/2014
Judges
Ncube, Mike Gibbins
Land Claims Court awarded the Shah family R13,666,035 in restitution compensation, including solatium, and ordered attorney-and-client costs against the State.
Mabuza obo Mabuza Family Descendants v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others (LCC125/2020) [2023] ZALCC 42 (13 December 2023)
Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC125/2020
Judges
Meer, Kgoele, A Andrews
The court found that the claimants, specifically Alpheus Mabuza and Simon Nutsi Sycho Mabuza as direct descendants of Samuel and Masotsha Mabuza, were entitled to restitution of rights in land under section 2(1)(c) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The evidence established that dispossession occurred after 1913 due to a broader racial framework and racially discriminatory practices, including forced evictions and the transformation of the land into commercial plantations. However, restoration of the claimed land was not feasible due to its current use, high value, and the risk of substan…
Izaacs v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC 2018/206) [2023] ZALCC 30 (4 October 2023)
Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC 2018/206
Judges
Spilg, Stemela
The court found that the Izaacs family was dispossessed of Erfs 408 and 409, Keimoes due to racially discriminatory practices by public officials, which prevented them from receiving reparations for livestock losses during the Afrikaner Rebellion. The requirements of the Restitution of Land Rights Act were satisfied. Compensation must be determined by starting with the market value at the time of dispossession, adjusted to current values using CPI, and then considering section 33 factors, including the hardship, indignity, and loss of dignity suffered by the family. The court rejected the pla…
Dikgalopeng Community (Di Thomo Tsa Bokone) and Others v Chief Land Claims Commissioner and Others [2022] ZALCC 45 (25 October 2022)
Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC 108/2022
Judge
Y S Meer
The Land Claims Court dismissed an urgent application to stop construction and related transfers on claimed land, finding the matter not urgent and the relief not established.
Habiba Soofie Saheb Badsha Peer Trust and Others v Minister of Agriculture Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 106/2014) [2021] ZALCC 12 (6 July 2021)
Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC 106/2014
Judges
NCUBE, SS LUTHULI
The Land Claims Court granted restoration, compensation, solatium, and costs in a restitution claim for properties connected to Soofie Saheb institutions in Durban North.
Emantanjeni Community v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others (LCC 17/2018) [2019] ZALCC 31 (8 November 2019)
Court
Land Claims Court
Case number
LCC 17/2018
Judge
Z Carelse
The Court held that the consent order of 12 June 2017 does not entitle the Applicant to immediate payment of R502,017,807. The order records the Applicant's abandonment of its claim for physical restoration and the release of certain landowners, while reserving the right to pursue equitable redress in future proceedings. There is no textual basis in the order for the relief sought, nor any reference to the quantum claimed. The Applicant's reliance on extrinsic evidence, including negotiations and correspondence, is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The application to enforce payment…
Jacobs (In re: the farm Uap) v Department of Land Affairs; Jacobs (In re: Erf 38) v Department of Land Affairs (1284/16; 982/2017) [2019] ZASCA 122 (26 September 2019)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1284/16; 982/2017
Judges
Ponnan, Swain, Mbha, Zondi, Tsoka
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court correctly determined compensation by applying the principles set out in Florence v Government of the Republic of South Africa. The financial loss at the time of dispossession, adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, is the appropriate measure for equitable redress under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The appellant's approach, seeking compensation based on current market value and loss of use, was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory framework and Constitutional Court authority. The hardship suffered by the September family…
Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Another v Phillips (52/2016) [2017] ZASCA 1; [2017] 2 All SA 33 (SCA) (22 February 2017)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
52/2016
Judges
Leach, Tshiqi, Zondi, Makgoka, Schippers
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Land Claims Court correctly determined the respondent's financial loss at the time of dispossession, using appropriate valuation norms and expert evidence. The applicants' experts were properly discredited for failing to conduct reliable valuations. The court a quo exercised its discretion judicially in awarding compensation and costs, making a downward adjustment to reflect public interest and fiscal concerns. The applicants conceded the correctness of the valuation and compensation but argued, without merit, that no redress should be paid. The puni…
