South Africa Case Law

Singh obo Singh Family v Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC79/2023)

Singh obo Singh Family v Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC79/2023) [2025] ZALCC 29 (2 June 2025)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC79/2023

Judge

Meer

The Court found that the Singh family was dispossessed of their farms under the Group Areas Act, receiving compensation far below market value and suffering significant hardship. Credible evidence established that 156 hectares of Broughton were under irrigation at the time of dispossession, contrary to the Defendant's unreliable data. The Plaintiff's expert valuation, escalated using the Consumer Price Index and adjusted for solatium, was accepted, except for the inclusion of transfer duty, which was excluded as actual financial loss. Considering the stark discrepancy between historic and cur…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Group Areas Act Dispossession
• Valuation Of Agricultural Land
• Constitutional Redress
• Expert Evidence

Wollach N.O. and Another v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC120/2010)

Wollach N.O. and Another v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC120/2010) [2018] ZALCC 7 (19 April 2018)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 120/2010

Judge

M P Canca

The Land Claims Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal about restitution compensation and farmland valuation, finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Land Restitution
• Valuation Of Farmland
• Group Areas Act Dispossession
• Leave To Appeal Test
• Section 25 Constitution

Bhana N.O. and Another v Gihwala and Others (LCC 07/2012)

Bhana N.O. and Another v Gihwala and Others (LCC 07/2012) [2014] ZALCC 18 (4 July 2014)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 07/2012

Judge

Canca

The court found that the application was brought within the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA, as the applicants only became aware of the administrative action when notified of the registration of transfer in favour of the first respondent. The will of Mrs Jelli Bhana, which bequeathed her entire estate to the second applicant, was sufficiently broad to include the right to restitution, and section 2(3)(a) of the RLRA does not require express reference to the land claim. The purported cession of the land claim to the first respondent was invalid, as land claims are personal and not capable of…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Succession And Land Claims
• Group Areas Act Dispossession
• Locus Standi
• Time Bar Under Paja

Ash and Others v Department of Land Affairs (LCC116/98)

Ash and Others v Department of Land Affairs (LCC116/98) [2000] ZALCC 54 (10 March 2000)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC116/98

Judges

Gildenhuys, Goldblatt

The court found that the claimants who received less than market value at the time of dispossession are entitled to restitution in the form of monetary compensation, calculated as the difference between the compensation actually received and the amount which would have been just and equitable at the time, escalated to present value using agreed consumer price index factors. The court rejected the applicants' expert valuation as unreliable and accepted the respondent's expert evidence and agreed facts. Claims where entitlement or descendancy was not proven were dismissed. The court held that s…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Group Areas Act Dispossession
• Market Value Assessment
• Onus Of Proof
• Monetary Compensation