Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Land And Property [2019] ZASCA 122

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)

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…

Source excerpt

  • Restitution Of Land Rights Act
  • Equitable Redress
  • Quantum Of Compensation
  • Racially Discriminatory Dispossession
  • Just And Equitable Compensation
Read case analysis
Land And Property [2007] ZASCA 69

Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others v Mphela and Ohers (553/05)

Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others v Mphela and Ohers (553/05) [2007] ZASCA 69; 2008 (7) BCLR 704 (SCA); 2007 (5) SA 596 (SCA) (30 May 2007)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
553/05
Judges
Harms, Cameron, Mlambo, Snyders, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the claimants were dispossessed of rights in land due to racially discriminatory laws and practices, and that their claim for restitution was not barred by s 2(2) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, as the compensation received did not fully recompense the loss suffered, including emotional and cultural factors. However, the court found that restoration of the entire farm would result in substantial over-compensation, given the market-related compensation and acquisition of Pylkop. The court ordered restoration of three of the four portions of the subd…

Source excerpt

  • Restitution Of Land Rights Act
  • Just And Equitable Compensation
  • Community Land Rights
  • Racially Discriminatory Dispossession
  • Restoration Of Land
  • Equitable Redress
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.