Government lawyers were on Tuesday studying a ruling by the High Court in Johannesburg compelling the State to compensate a Free State farmer for property seized from him in Zimbabwe.

"[We've] taken note of the judgment. Government's legal advisors are applying their minds on the matter and will advise government on the appropriate course of action to pursue," International Relations and Cooperation Department spokesperson Saul Molobi said.

On Friday, the High Court in Johannesburg ordered the government to compensate Crawford von Abo, after several of his farms in Zimbabwe were seized under that government's land reform programme.

Government may be forced to pay up to R500-million to Von Abo, the SABC reported. His lawyer, Ernst Penzhorn was quoted as saying that the ruling proved that the South African judicial system was working.

Last year, the Constitutional Court declined to confirm an order that would have made the President responsible for Von Abo's struggle to get diplomatic protection from Zimbabwe's land seizures.

Like many other land owners, he was not compensated for his losses and, after exhausting his legal options in Zimbabwe, turned to the South African government for diplomatic protection. He had been trying to get the South African government to intervene for the past eight years.

He eventually took the government of South Africa, the President and the ministers of international relations, trade and industry and justice and constitutional development to court, arguing that diplomatic protection was his constitutional right and he was not getting it.

He won the case in the High Court in Pretoria and asked the Constitutional Court to confirm it.

There were several delays as the government tried to show the Constitutional Court it was taking steps to address Von Abo's concerns, and it had been trying to secure diplomatic protection for him.

The Constitutional Court ruled that because the government had not asked for leave to appeal the Pretoria court's ruling, and that it had been trying to show how it was complying with the judgment, it would not make a confirmation ruling on the government's conduct because it was trying to comply with its obligations.

The court said it was reluctant to have to confirm every court finding against a Cabinet minister or government official, as this would blur the functions of other courts and bog its own court down.