https://www.polity.org.za
Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Case Law / All Case Law RSS ← Back
Africa
Africa
africa
Close

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Sponsored by

Close

Article Enquiry

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

Close

Embed Video

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

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

27th September 2019

ARTICLE ENQUIRY      SAVE THIS ARTICLE      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Font size: -+

Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1] These two appeals, emanating in each instance from the Land Claims Court (LCC), were heard together as they both concern the same parties and issue, namely, the determination of the quantum of compensation as equitable redress for a racially discriminatory dispossession of land rights in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (the Act). Although the subject land in both cases differ, the parties in both are the same. The first appeal is against the judgment and order of the Land Claims Court of South Africa, Randburg (per Ngcukaitobi and Mpshe AJJ) of 24 October 2016, in terms of which the respondent, the Department of Land Affairs (the Department), was ordered to inter alia pay the claimants an amount of R10 million as compensation for the dispossession of rights in the Farm Uap, situated in Upington. This appeal is with the leave of the LCC.

Advertisement

[2] The second appeal, which is with the leave of this court, is against the judgment and order of the LCC, Cape Town (per Murphy J sitting with an assessor) of 6 January 2017, which after a trial on quantum, ordered the Department to pay the appellant R780 000 as compensation for the dispossession of rights in Erf 38, also situated in Upington. The argument in both appeals, is that the courts below erred in the determination of the amounts of compensation payable by not taking into account the current market value of the properties in question, together with the value of the past loss of use of the properties. Thus, increased compensation was sought in both appeals.

To watch Creamer Media's latest video reports, click here
 
Advertisement

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE      SAVE THIS ARTICLE ARTICLE ENQUIRY

To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here

Comment Guidelines

About

Polity.org.za is a product of Creamer Media.
www.creamermedia.co.za

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more

Subscriptions

We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store

Advertise

Advertising on Polity.org.za is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email advertising@creamermedia.co.za

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now