South Africa Case Law

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 1 (15 January 2018)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 120/2010

Judges

Canca, Nongalaza

The Land Claims Court held that compensation paid for Hartebeeskraal Farm’s 1973 expropriation was just and equitable, dismissing the claim for further payment.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Expropriation
• Market Value Assessment
• Section 25 Constitution
• Expert Evidence Evaluation

Solid Base Trading 121 CC (Pty) Ltd v City of Matlosana Local Municipality (1741/2015)

Solid Base Trading 121 CC (Pty) Ltd v City of Matlosana Local Municipality (1741/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1155 (8 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1741/2015

Judge

S.A.M. Baqwa

High Court expropriation case on just and equitable compensation for land affected by an Eskom servitude, with prior payments and costs also considered.

• Expropriation Act
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Market Value Assessment
• Servitude Impact On Value
• Constitutional Property Rights
• Costs Award

Uys N.O and Another v Msiza and Others (1222/2016)

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

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1222/2016

Judges

Navsa, Cachalia, Seriti, Tsoka, Lamont

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 Cl…

Source excerpt

• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Expropriation
• Market Value Assessment
• Labour Tenant Claims
• Costs Award
• Pointe Gourde Principle

Agri South Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy and Another (55896/07)

Agri South Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy and Another (55896/07) [2011] ZAGPPHC 62; [2011] 3 All SA 296 (GNP); 2012 (1) SA 171 (GNP); 2012 (1) BCLR 16 (GNP) (28 April 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55896/07

Judge

B.R. Du Plessis

The court found that the MPRDA, by its enactment, deprived Sebenza Mining (Pty) Ltd of its coal rights, legislating them out of existence and replacing them only with a limited right to apply for new rights under the Act. This deprivation constituted expropriation under section 25(2) of the Constitution, as the State acquired the substance of the rights through its custodianship and power to grant new rights. The transitional arrangements did not preserve the original rights, and Sebenza was unable to benefit from them due to its liquidation and lack of resources. The court held that compensa…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation
• Compensation For Expropriation
• Mineral Rights
• Section 25 Constitution
• Unused Old Order Rights
• Market Value Assessment

City of Cape Town v Helderberg Park Development (Pty) Ltd (429/05)

City of Cape Town v Helderberg Park Development (Pty) Ltd (429/05) [2006] ZASCA 91; [2007] 1 All SA 517 (SCA); 2007 (1) SA 1 (SCA); 2007 (6) BCLR 628 (SCA) (31 August 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

429/05

Judges

Harms, Mthiyane, Nugent, Conradie, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the expropriated strip of land had no development potential and its market value was negligible. The sterilisation of the strip for canalisation was a necessary precondition for township development, and Helderberg purchased Phase 3 with full knowledge of this limitation. The court found no causal link between the planning condition and the expropriation that would justify disregarding the depreciation in value under s 12(5)(f). The compensation must reflect the agricultural value of the land, as proposed by the local authority, and no upward adjustment w…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation Act
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Pointe Gourde Principle
• Market Value Assessment
• Planning Restrictions
• Costs Award

Cartoria Motor Industries (Pty) Ltd v Swanepoel (487/05 , 487/05)

Cartoria Motor Industries (Pty) Ltd v Swanepoel (487/05 , 487/05) [2006] ZASCA 58; [2006] SCA 58 (RSA) (19 May 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

487/2005

Judges

Streicher, Brand, Heher

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that absolution from the instance had been granted on the wrong test.

• Absolution From The Instance
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Quantum Of Damages
• Breach Of Contract
• Market Value Assessment
• Absolution-from-the-instance

S v Sithole (183/2002)

S v Sithole (183/2002) [2004] ZASCA 77; 2005 (2) SACR 504 (SCA) (16 September 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

183/2002

Judges

Cameron, Conradie, van Heerden

The court found the appellant's account of ignorance regarding the dagga to be highly improbable, given the circumstances and the strong odour emanating from the vehicle. The appellant's failure to provide an immediate exculpatory explanation and his later untruthful assertion about waiving his right to silence undermined his credibility and supported the inference that he was knowingly dealing in dagga. However, the State failed to prove the market value of the dagga as required by the minimum sentencing legislation, having relied on notional street value rather than the actual value at the…

Source excerpt

• Drug Dealing
• Minimum Sentencing
• Market Value Assessment
• Right To Silence
• Credibility Of Accused

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

Sher NO and Others v Administrator of the Transvaal (606/88)

Sher NO and Others v Administrator of the Transvaal (606/88) [1990] ZASCA 77; 1990 (4) SA 545 (AD); (23 August 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

606/88

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Milne, Steyn, Nicholas

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court was correct to reject the static residual valuation method advanced by the appellants' expert, Dr Gerke, as it was unscientific, failed to account for developer's profit and interest, and was not supported by market realities. The court found that, although the comparable sales method used by the respondent's expert, Mr Griffiths, was open to criticism due to lack of truly comparable transactions and arbitrary adjustments, it nonetheless provided the best available evidence. The transaction between the company and the family trusts, while…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation Act
• Compensation For Expropriation
• Market Value Assessment
• Comparable Sales Method
• Residual Land Value Method
• Developer Profit

Strauss v Nieuwoudt and Another (306/88)

Strauss v Nieuwoudt and Another (306/88) [1990] ZASCA 19 (20 March 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

306/88

Judges

Milne, Kumleben, Joubert, Botha, Goldstone

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant knowingly made a false representation regarding the extent of cultivated land on the property, stating there were 180 hectares when in fact there were only approximately 110 hectares. This misrepresentation was material and induced the respondents to agree to a higher purchase price, calculated on the basis of the inflated figure. The evidence of Truter and other witnesses was accepted as credible, demonstrating that the respondents relied on the representation in determining the price. The appellant's explanations were rejected as improbab…

Source excerpt

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Damages Calculation
• Market Value Assessment