South Africa Case Law

Mabuza obo Mabuza Family Descendants v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others (LCC125/2020)

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…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Labour Tenancy
• Equitable Redress
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Racially Discriminatory Laws
• Financial Compensation

Koloko N.O v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others (LCC85/2020)

Koloko N.O v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others (LCC85/2020) [2022] ZALCC 39 (16 November 2022)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC85/2020

Judges

Y S Meer, S S Luthuli

The court found that the plaintiff, as executor and direct descendant of the dispossessed owner, had locus standi to claim restitution. Oral testimony and documentary evidence, including the will and sworn statements, established the necessary lineage despite the absence of an unabridged birth certificate. Expert valuers agreed that physical restoration of Portion 9 was feasible and would not unduly disrupt current farming operations. The court determined that the compensation received at the time of dispossession was inadequate and that the current value of just and equitable compensation wa…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Locus Standi
• Racial Dispossession
• Valuation Of Expropriated Land

Moletele Community and Others v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (LCC206/2010)

Moletele Community and Others v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (LCC206/2010) [2020] ZALCC 9 (9 October 2020)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC206/2010

Judge

Spilg

The Land Claims Court held that separating the restorability issue did not stop Telkom from relying on its other pleaded defences, and ordered punitive costs against the main claimants.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Separation Of Issues
• Costs Order
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Separation-of-issues
• Land-restitution

Baphiring Community and Others v Tshwaranani Projects CC and Others (806/12)

Baphiring Community and Others v Tshwaranani Projects CC and Others (806/12) [2013] ZASCA 99; [2013] 4 All SA 292 (SCA); 2014 (1) SA 330 (SCA) (6 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

806/12

Judges

Cachalia, Shongwe, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Mbha

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred in making a non-restoration order without sufficient evidence from the state regarding the feasibility of restoring the land to the Baphiring Community. The state failed to conduct a proper feasibility study and did not provide material evidence on critical factors such as the cost of expropriation, institutional and financial support, social disruption, and the impact on current occupants. This omission constituted a material irregularity that vitiated the non-restoration order. The matter was remitted to the Land Claims Court…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Public Interest
• State Obligation
• Material Irregularity

Kwalindile Community v King Sabata Dalinyebo Municipality and Others; Zimbane Community v King Sabata Dalinyebo Municipality and Others (CCT 52/12, CCT 55/12)

Kwalindile Community v King Sabata Dalinyebo Municipality and Others; Zimbane Community v King Sabata Dalinyebo Municipality and Others (CCT 52/12, CCT 55/12) [2013] ZACC 6; 2013 (5) BCLR 531 (CC); 2013 (6) SA 193 (CC) (28 March 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 52/12, CCT 55/12

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Mogoeng CJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J, Zondo J

The Constitutional Court held that both the Land Claims Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal erred in granting a blanket non-restoration order over all land in Mthatha, including undeveloped and vacant land, without sufficient factual basis or proper identification of the land. The evidence showed that the applicant communities sought restoration only of undeveloped land, and there was no proof that such restoration would cause social upheaval or substantial prejudice to the public. The orders were overbroad and unduly curtailed the constitutional right to restitution. The Court found that t…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Public Interest Test
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Equitable Redress
• Municipal Commonage
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Dhlomo-Dhlomo Community v Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others (LCC175/10)

Dhlomo-Dhlomo Community v Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others (LCC175/10) [2012] ZALCC 15 (19 October 2012)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC175/10

Judges

Mpshe, Malebo Kotu-Rammopo

The court found that the claimants are entitled to restoration of the claimed land under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. The evidence showed that physical restoration is feasible and preferable to monetary compensation, given the benefits to the claimant community and the inadequacy of the state's proposed financial redress. The argument that restoration would result in overcompensation was rejected, as the claimants received no compensation at dispossession and have a right to claim all property lost. The state's financial constraints and policy concerns do not justify refusal of restora…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Physical Restoration
• Equitable Redress
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Overcompensation
• Joint Venture Arrangement

Mhlanganisweni Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 156/2009)

Mhlanganisweni Community v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 156/2009) [2012] ZALCC 7 (19 April 2012)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 156/2009

Judges

G Gildenhuys, C E Loots, M Wiechers

Restoration of the MalaMala land to the Mhlanganisweni Community is not feasible. The market value of the land and improvements is at least R791,289,492, which the State cannot reasonably be expected to pay in the public interest. Restoration would result in substantial overcompensation of the claimants, as the land has been transformed into a world-class eco-tourism destination, far removed from its state at the time of dispossession. The claimants do not intend to settle on the land but to continue its commercial use, and the proposed cooperation agreement with Londolozi does not provide su…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Overcompensation
• Market Value Expropriation
• Public Interest Land Reform

Baphiring Community v Uys and Others (LCC64/1998)

Baphiring Community v Uys and Others (LCC64/1998) [2010] ZALCC 9 (29 April 2010)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC64/1998

Judges

A Gildenhuys, SC Mia, Professor M Wiechers

The Land Claims Court granted the Baphiring Community and other applicants leave to appeal, and corrected its earlier costs order in a land restitution dispute.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Equitable Redress
• Costs Reservation
• Land-restitution
• Leave-to-appeal

Mazizini Community v Emfuleni Resorts (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC 23/07)

Mazizini Community v Emfuleni Resorts (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC 23/07) [2010] ZALCC 3 (12 March 2010)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 23/07

Judges

Bam JP, N Mkaza

The Land Claims Court ordered restoration of the Fish River Sun Complex to the Mazizini Community, finding restitution was appropriate and public-interest objections were unproven.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Restoration Of Land
• Public Interest Considerations
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• State Support Programmes
• Land-restitution

Baphiring Community v Uys and Others (LCC64/1998)

Baphiring Community v Uys and Others (LCC64/1998) [2010] ZALCC 1; 2010 (3) SA 130 (LCC) ; [2010] 3 All SA 353 (LCC) (19 January 2010)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC64/1998

Judges

MIA, A Gildenhuys, M Wiechers

The court held that restoring Rosmincol to the Baphiring Community was not feasible, but grave sites could be restored and equitable redress would be decided later.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Feasibility Of Restoration
• Equitable Redress
• Expropriation
• Compensation For Dispossession
• Community Resettlement