Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and Witfontein X16 Boerdery CC v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others
[2025] ZASCA 110; Case No 62/2024 (22 July 2025)
This judgment was marked reportable by the Supreme Court of Appeal because it clarifies the scope and meaning of the definition of “agricultural land” in section 1 of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970. It also deals with the rationality of ministerial decisions that refuse subdivision consent in terms of that Act. Given the prevalence of mixed-use and “aerotropolis” developments on the fringes of metropolitan areas, the decision carries significant precedential weight for future disputes involving land-use planning, food-security considerations and the competing mandates of national and municipal spheres of government.
The extract provided does not reproduce any case citations from the judgment. If the full text later references authorities they should be inserted here in full citation form.
Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970
Transvaal Board for the Development of Peri-Urban Areas Ordinance 20 of 1943
Transvaal Town-planning and Townships Ordinance 1965
The judgment, as provided, does not expressly cite any rule of court.
The appellants owned a 294-hectare property inside the Ekurhuleni “urban edge” earmarked for an aerotropolis-led mixed-use township. They applied in April 2019 for ministerial consent to subdivide the land into residential, business, industrial and open-space erven. The delegate of the Minister refused consent on the basis that most of the land constituted high-potential arable soil whose loss would undermine national food security.
Following an unsuccessful internal appeal to the Minister, the appellants approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court for (i) a declarator that the land did not fall within the definition of “agricultural land” in SALA, or alternatively (ii) review relief against the refusal decision. The High Court dismissed both prayers but granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
A majority of the SCA, per Vally AJA, dismissed the declarator but upheld the review. The Court held that the Minister’s decision was irrational because it relied on generic policy considerations and an outdated soil-potential study without engaging with the municipality’s approved spatial-development framework and the specific mitigatory measures proposed by the appellants.
Whether the appellants’ property is “agricultural land” as defined in section 1 of SALA, having regard to historical and statutory context.
Whether the Minister’s refusal to consent to subdivision was rational, properly reasoned and aligned with the statutory purpose of SALA.
What relief is appropriate where a refusal is found irrational but the land may still fall within the statutory definition of agricultural land.
The Court held that the property remains “agricultural land” under SALA because it is not situated within the jurisdiction of a municipality that had, before the SALA commencement, been proclaimed a local authority area. The declarator was therefore refused.
However, the Minister’s decision-making process was vitiated by irrationality and a failure to engage relevant considerations. Consequently, the refusal was reviewed and set aside. The subdivision application was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration. The appeal thus succeeded in part, and the Minister was ordered to pay half the appellants’ costs, including the costs of two counsel.
The appellants, Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and its affiliate Witfontein X16 Boerdery CC, own the remainder of Portion 5 of Farm Witfontein X16. The land lies within the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and inside the municipality’s 2011 Urban Edge, amended in 2015 to promote an aerotropolis around O.R. Tambo International Airport.
On 24 April 2019 the appellants applied to the Minister’s delegate in terms of SALA for consent to subdivide the 294-hectare property into a mixed-use township comprising six residential-3 erven, four business-3 erven, twenty-nine industrial-2 erven and one private open-space erf. Their business model sought to capitalise on the logistics corridor along the R21 between Johannesburg and Pretoria.
The delegate refused the application on 5 August 2019, citing the high agricultural potential of 219 hectares of the site and the statutory mandate to protect food security. An internal appeal to the Minister was dismissed on 1 October 2020. The Minister emphasised the objectives of SALA and a study by Dr Gouws confirming the high-potential arable soils. Tridevco then launched court proceedings seeking to overturn the decision.
The Court had to decide, first, whether the property fell within the statutory definition of “agricultural land”. This required an historical analysis of SALA, the 1943 Peri-Urban Areas Ordinance and the evolution of local-government structures.
Secondly, if the land were indeed agricultural, the Court had to determine whether the Minister’s refusal was lawful, procedurally fair and rational in the administrative-law sense.
Finally, the Court was asked to craft an appropriate remedy—either a declarator exempting the land from SALA altogether or a review remedy setting aside and remitting the decision.
In a detailed historical excursus, Vally AJA traced the origins of the “agricultural land” definition to the peri-urban governance model of the 1940s. Under that regime, land outside municipal or town-council control—but still within a peri-urban board’s area—was deemed agricultural for SALA purposes. The Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed that this statutory scheme remains intact unless Parliament amends SALA; municipal re-demarcation in the democratic era does not, by itself, remove land from the definition.
Applying that framework, the Court found that the appellants’ property, although now within Ekurhuleni’s metropolitan boundaries, did not historically fall under a local authority or Local Area Committee established before SALA commenced. Consequently it retained its agricultural status.
Turning to the review, the Court applied the principle of rationality under the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. It criticised the Minister for relying on a single soil-potential report without considering contemporary spatial-development imperatives, possible mitigation of agricultural loss or the balance between national food security and urban growth. The decision thus lacked a rational connection between the reasons given and the statutory purpose, warranting judicial intervention.
The declaratory relief was refused, but the review succeeded. The Court set aside the Minister’s decision of 1 October 2020 and remitted the subdivision application for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment. The Minister was ordered to pay 50 percent of the appellants’ costs, including the costs of two counsel, both in the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court.
The definition of “agricultural land” in SALA is to be interpreted contextually and historically, with particular reference to pre-1970 provincial ordinances governing peri-urban areas. Current municipal boundaries do not automatically disqualify land from that definition.
Administrative decisions refusing subdivision must demonstrate a rational link between the evidence considered, the reasons furnished and the statutory objectives of SALA. Failing to engage material considerations—such as municipal planning frameworks—renders such decisions reviewable.
Where a decision is irrational but the underlying statutory classification remains intact, the proper remedy is to set aside the decision and remit the matter for fresh consideration rather than to grant a substantive exemption from the Act.