South Africa Case Law

Liberty Group Limited and Another v Valuation Appeal Board for City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/067833)

Liberty Group Limited and Another v Valuation Appeal Board for City of Johannesburg and Others (2023/067833) [2025] ZAGPJHC 700 (4 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/067833

Judge

Farber AJ

The court found that the Valuation Appeal Board failed to comply with its statutory and constitutional obligations as an administrative decision-making body. The Board did not properly assess or evaluate the competing expert evidence, nor did it provide adequate reasons for preferring the City's valuer over the owners' experts. The Board's reliance on information from unregistered leases in determining market value constituted a breach of section 46(3)(c) of the Municipal Property Rates Act. Furthermore, the Board's uncritical acceptance of the City's evidence and rejection of the owners' evi…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Valuation Review
• Bias In Administrative Decision
• Expert Evidence
• Market Value Determination

Nkomazi Local Municipality v Valuation Appeal Board For The District of Ehlanzeni and Others (615/2023)

Nkomazi Local Municipality v Valuation Appeal Board For The District of Ehlanzeni and Others (615/2023) [2024] ZASCA 155 (13 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

615/2023

Judges

Mokgohloa, Nicholls, Weiner, Coppin, Mjali

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Valuation Appeal Board acted irrationally by failing to assess the expert evidence and give reasons for its decision.

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Valuation Of Property
• Failure To Give Reasons
• Market Value Determination
• Administrative-law

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Mandela Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (7440/2007)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Mandela Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others (7440/2007) [2024] ZAGPPHC 507 (22 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

7440/2007

Judge

Tuchten

The High Court dismissed the City of Tshwane’s common-law rescission bid against a 2007 consent order, finding no good cause and no acceptable delay explanation.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Municipal Property Disposal
• Market Value Determination
• Delay In Application
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Municipal-property-disposal

Shoreline Auctioneers CC v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (38105/2017)

Shoreline Auctioneers CC v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (38105/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 464 (8 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

38105/2017

Judge

Flatela

The High Court granted leave to appeal in an expropriation compensation dispute, finding one ground had reasonable prospects of success.

• Expropriation Act 1975
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Leave To Appeal
• Market Value Determination
• Expropriation
• Leave-to-appeal

Hoku Investments (Pty) Ltd v Dr Pixley Kaisaka Seme Municipality and Others (69/2022)

Hoku Investments (Pty) Ltd v Dr Pixley Kaisaka Seme Municipality and Others (69/2022) [2023] ZAMPMHC 44 (22 December 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

69/2022

Judge

TV Ratshibvumo

High Court review challenge to a municipal land sale failed. The court held that public participation and statutory disposal requirements were sufficiently complied with.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Asset Disposal
• Public Participation
• Market Value Determination
• Bias In Administrative Action
• Administrative-law

163 Stilfontein Properties CC v Chairperson of the Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Matlosana and Another (M736/2021)

163 Stilfontein Properties CC v Chairperson of the Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Matlosana and Another (M736/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 204 (2 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M736/2021

Judge

JT Djaje

The court held that while section 49 of the Municipal Property Rates Act prescribes mandatory procedures for notice and publication of valuation rolls, the applicant was not prejudiced by any procedural irregularity, as it was afforded an opportunity to object and participate in the appeal process. The first respondent correctly found that it could not rule on the technical legality of compliance with section 49, as such determinations fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The evidence established that the municipal valuer's report was comprehensive, relied on appropriate valuation…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Valuation Rolls
• Procedural Fairness
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Market Value Determination

De Zalze Golf Club v Valuation Appeal Board for the Stellenbosch Municipality and Another (3429/19)

De Zalze Golf Club v Valuation Appeal Board for the Stellenbosch Municipality and Another (3429/19) [2020] ZAWCHC 108; [2020] 4 All SA 754 (WCC) (25 September 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3429/19

Judge

Rogers

The High Court reviewed and set aside a municipal valuation appeal board decision valuing a golf course leasehold, finding inadequate reasons and irrational valuation methodology.

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Valuation Of Leasehold Rights
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Market Value Determination
• Double Taxation Argument
• Procedural Fairness

Pentree Limited v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (3199/2013)

Pentree Limited v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (3199/2013) [2016] ZAECPEHC 83; [2017] 2 All SA 260 (ECP); 2017 (4) SA 32 (ECP) (17 November 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3199/2013

Judge

J W Eksteen

The court held that evidence tendered by an expert valuer based on statements from third parties not called as witnesses is admissible in expropriation proceedings, provided it is presented as information that a notional informed buyer and seller would have considered in determining market value, rather than for the truth of the statements. The probative value of such evidence depends on the weight a notional buyer and seller would attach to it, not on the credibility of the third party. The court found that the reasoning in Lornadawn Investments and subsequent cases remains valid under the c…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation Act 1975
• Admissibility Of Expert Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence
• Market Value Determination
• Rule 36 9b Compliance

Trans Hex Group Ltd v Matsapa Trading 609 CC NO and Others (09/42044)

Trans Hex Group Ltd v Matsapa Trading 609 CC NO and Others (09/42044) [2010] ZAGPJHC 179 (10 December 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

09/42044

Judge

Meyer

The court held that the GDV was authorised to verify the price specified by the producer, which could include conducting its own valuation to test the accuracy of the specified fair market value. The verification by the GDV did not amount to administrative action with direct external legal effect and was not subject to judicial review under PAJA. The independent valuator's fixing of the price, however, was reviewable administrative action. The IDV failed to consider relevant information, specifically the actual market prices achieved for comparable stones and the DEEC tender results, which we…

Source excerpt

• Diamonds Act
• Judicial Review
• Valuation Of Unpolished Diamonds
• Procedural Fairness
• Market Value Determination

Abrams v Allie NO and Others (114/03)

Abrams v Allie NO and Others (114/03) [2004] ZASCA 13; [2004] 2 All SA 99 (SCA); 2004 (9) BCLR 914 (SCA); 2004 (4) SA 534 (SCA) (26 March 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

114/03

Judges

Howie P, Scott JA, Farlam JA, Lewis JA, Ponnan AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mahatey was dispossessed of the property due to the operation of racially discriminatory laws, specifically the Group Areas Act and Community Development Act. However, the compensation paid to Mahatey at the time of dispossession was found to be equivalent to market value, with the difference being less than two percent. Given the inherent imprecision in market value determinations, the court concluded that Mahatey received just and equitable compensation as contemplated by section 25(3) of the Constitution and section 2(2) of the Restitution of Land Righ…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Group Areas Act
• Market Value Determination
• Racial Discrimination
• Expropriation