INTHELANDCOURTOFSOUTHAF~CA
HELD AT RANDBURG
CASE NO: LCC79/2023
Before: Honourable Meer J
Heard on: 24 to 27 March 2025 and 23 April 2025
Delivered on: 2 June 2025
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: YES I~
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES Hit&
(3) REVISED:-¥-E-8-/ NO
~ - .9.~IP'?I 1/!?-S
DATE
In the matter between: SIGNATURE
FATHAR SINGH o.b.o. SINGH FAMILY.
and
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM
THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
KWA ZULU NATAL Plaintiff
Defendant
Participating Party
Page 1 of29

MEERJ ORDER
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of R1 ,017,912.00 (One
million and seventeen thousand, nine hundred and twelve rand) as just
and equitable compensation arising from the dispossession of Portion 7
(of1) of the Farm Millie Hoogte No 994.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of R33,580,332.00 (thirty
three million five hundred and eighty thousand three hundred and thirty
two rand) as just and equitable compensation arising from the
dispossession of Portion 43 (of 12) of the farm Broughton No 925 FT.
3. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs on a scale as between party
and party such to include the costs of counsel.
4. The Defendant shall further pay the qualifying costs of the Plaintiff's expert
witness Mr Alan Stephenson, such to include the costs of expert reports,
court attendance s, consultations and travelling costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is a claim for restitution of rights in land in terms of the Restitution of Land
Rights Act 22 of 1994 ( "the Restitution Act"), in which the Plaintiff seeks equitable
redress1 in the form of financial compensation. The Plaintiff brings the claim on behalf
of himself and his four sisters ("the Singh family"), as direct descendants of their late
father who was dispossessed of two farms under the Group Areas Act 77 of 1957 {"the
Group Areas Act").
1 Chapter l of the Restitution Act defines equitable redress as:
"Equitable redress" means any equitable redress, other than the restoration of a right in land,
arising from the dispossession of a right in land after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially
discriminatory laws or practices, including-
(a) the granting of an appropriate right in alternative state-owned land;
(b) the payment of compensation;
Page 2 of29
[2] The claim is in respect of the following properties, ("the farms/subject
properties") described as follows:
2.1. Sub 7 (of 1) of the farm Millie Hoogte No 994 ("Millie Hoogte") in the
extent of 17.1409 hectares situated in Msunduzi Local Municipality
under uMgungungdlovu District Municipality, Kwa Zulu Natal.
2.2. Sub 43 (of 12) of the farm Broughton No 925 ( "Broughton") in the
extent of 194.7953 hectares situated in Msunduzi Local Municipality
under uMgungungdlovu District Municipality, KwaZulu Natal.
The Defendant, the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform agrees
to the compensation amount of R1 ,017,912.00. (One million and seventeen
thousand, nine hundred and twelve rand) claimed in respect of Millie Hoogte
but contests the compensation claimed for Broughton, as appears more
fully below.
[3] The claim was lodged by the late Fathar Singh who was the registered owner
of the farms. Upon the death of Fathar Singh in 2010, the claim was pursued as a
descendant's claim in terms of section 2 (1) (c) of the Restitution Act by his son Adith
Fathar Singh, on behalf of the Singh family. The late Fathar Singh, who was classified
Indian, was forced to sell the farms to persons of the white group in terms of the Group
Areas Act, a racial law which designated the area in which the farms are located, for
occupation and ownership of persons falling within the white group.
[4] It is common cause between the parties that the late Fathar Singh was
dispossessed of his rights in land as a result of a past racially discriminatory law as
contemplated in section 2 (1) of the Restitution Act. It is further common cause that at
the time of dispossession he did not receive just and equitable compensation.
[5] The parties are in agreement that the just and equitable compensation payable
in respect of the farm Mielie Hoogte is R1,017,912.00. (One million and seventeen
thousand, nine hundred and twelve rand) They have accepted the valuation in this amount
of the Plaintiff's valuer, Mr Alan Stephenson, of the under compensation at the time of
dispossession escalated to current day value using the Consumer Price Index. I am
Page 3 of29
satisfied that the valuation in this amount has been properly arrived at based inter alia
on comparable historical sales data, solatium and the factors prescribed in section
25(3)2 of the Constitution for determining just and equitable compensation. I intend
making an order for awarding payment of the said amount to the Plaintiff as just and
equitable compensation in respect of Millie Hoogte
[6] The parties have not reached agreement on the just and equitable
compensation payable in respect of Broughton. Their main point of departure is the
extent of land that was under irrigation in 1980 at the time of dispossession. The
Plaintiff contends that at least 156 hectares of Broughton was under irrigation at the
time of dispossession. The Defendant contends that only 21 hectares of Broughton
was under irrigation at the time. The greater the extent of land determined to be under
irrigation, the greater the compensation, the Plaintiff will be entitled to.
[7] The issue for me to determine therefore, is firstly the extent of irrigated land on
Broughton at the date of dispossession and secondly, the just and equitable
compensation payable to the Singh family for the dispossession. To assist me in my
task I heard the testimony of the Plaintiff, his cousin Mr Ajay Singh and expert valuer
Mr Alan Stephenson, on behalf of the Plaintiff. On behalf of the Defendant, the
evidence of expert valuer Mr Gildenhuys, and of Mr Rencken, the current owner of
Broughton, was lead. I also had the benefit of reports by both valuers. I heard evidence
and argument in Durban in a trial that spanned a week. Mr Chetty appeared for the
Plaintiff and Mr Zulu for the Defendant.
Background Facts and Evidence
[8] The subject properties are situated in the New Hanover area of KwaZulu Natal,
approximately 33 km from Pietermaritzburg. Access to the properties is via the R33.
2 Section 25(3):
(3) The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable,
reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having
regard to all relevant circumstances, including: -
(a) the current use of the property;
(b) the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
(c) the market value of the property;
(d) the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital
improvement of the property; and
(e) the purpose of the expropriation.
Page 4 of 29
The properties are zoned agricultural and comprise high potential arable land. The
Plaintiff's assertion that the properties are regarded as some of the most sought after
agricultural land in KwaZulu Natal was unrefuted.
[9] The original farms Broughton and Mielie Hoogte were previously owned by the
late Mr Mypath Singh, the Plaintiff's grandfather. Upon his death he bequeathed the
farms in equal shares to his sons, Parthab Singh and Fathar Singh, the latter being
the Plaintiff's father. The brothers entered into a redistribution agreement and
undertook a subdivision of Broughton. Pursuant thereto Fathar Singh acquired
194, 7953 hectares of the original farm Broughton and took over sole ownership of
Millie Hoogte. Parthab Singh acquired the balance of Broughton, being 192,7300
hectares. He farmed productively and lucratively throughout his ownership of the farm.
[1 O] As aforementioned, the area in which the subject properties are situated, was
declared to be for persons of the white group only, in terms of the Group Areas Act,
and it became no longer possible for Fathar Singh to continue to own his farms. He
was by law forced to sell them to persons of the white group.
[11] On 28 May 1980, Fathar Singh forcibly sold Portion 43 of Broughton for
R188000.00 (One hundred and eighty-eight thousand rand) to Mpolweni Properties
Pty Ltd, an entity owned by a person of the white group, Mr Rencken. It is common
cause that this sum was well below the market value of the farm at the time and
moreover that it did not constitute just and equitable compensation in terms of section
25 (3) of the Constitution. Mr Rencken continued the productive and lucrative farming
operations on the farm. Upon his death, the farm was passed on to his son Arthur
Rencken who is still the current owner. The current unrefuted market value of
Broughton is R41 975, 416 ( forty one million, nine hudred and seventy five thousand,
four hundred and sixteen rand).
[12] Fathar Singh was similarly forced to sell Milie Hoogte to a person of the white
group, a Mr Rodger Farren, which he did for R16000 ( sixteen thousand rand) earlier,
in January1976. Astonishingly, Mr Farren resold the farm to a Mr Roodt, also of the
white group two months later in March 1976 for R32000, at a profit of 100%.
Page 5 of 29
[13] It is unrefuted that there has always been a plentiful supply of water to the
subject properties. The supply of water in 1976 and 1980 was sufficiently secure to
irrigate 80 % of both farms. Water security was provided by the Mpolweni River, a
tributary of the Umgeni River and the dams in the area. A number of dams on the
Mpolweni River upstream from the subject properties, ensure water security to both
farms. The Mpolweni River feeds the Clan Dam which feeds the Newington Dam which
in turn feeds the Crammond Dam. The Grencester Dam, situated on tributaries of the
Mpolweni River also feeds the Mpolweni River.
[14] At the time of the dispossessions, the subject properties enjoyed water rights
which entitled Mr Fathar Singh to draw sufficient water to irrigate both farms, provided
sufficient water was allowed to go to downstream farms. Currently, Broughton has
approximately 140 hectares under irrigation, mostly from two centre pivots and enjoys
water rights over its entirety. The statement in Mr Stephenson's report that this
illustrates that there was sufficient water to irrigate the subject properties at the date
of dispossession, was unchallenged.
[15] The subject properties enjoy exceptionally good Hutton type soil suitable for
intensive farming. They are currently used for sugar cane, soya beans and maize
production under irrigation.
[16] The Valuers, with reference to comparable sales in the area agreed on the
following values in relation to Broughton:
16.1. As of 1980 the per hectare value of timberland was R2300 and the
value of arable land was R1500.
[17] On a consideration of the valuation reports, I accept these values. In addition
they agreed, and I accept, that in accordance with general valuation practice, the
contributory value of the buildings should be set at 11, 11 % of the gross value of the
farm, and that solatium should be calculated in accordance with the Expropriation Act
63 of 1975.
Page 6 of 29
[18] As aforementioned, the issue that remains in contention is the extent and value
of irrigated land on Broughton at the date of dispossession. The evidence, as appears
below, focused on this aspect.
Evidence
The Evidence of the Plaintiff Mr Adith Fathar Singh
[19] The Plaintiff testified as follows:
19.1. He was born on the farm Broughton in 1968. When his father
acquired ownership of Broughton in 1971 from his father, it was a
fully operational commercial farm. From the age of 7, the Plaintiff
rode around the farm on a tractor and whilst he was 12 when the
farms were dispossessed, he had a good knowledge and memory
of activities on the farm. They specialized in cabbages, maize and
potatoes. There were side crops of habbard squash, calabash and
butternut.
19.2. The greater part of the subject properties was irrigated. At least
80% of Broughton was under irrigation and not only 21 hectares
as contended by the Defendant. The farm had an underground
irrigation system with valves/taps above ground to which pipes and
sprinklers were attached for maximum crop irrigation. There was
a big 6-cylinder diesel engine "coupled" to a water pump at the
Mpolweni River "pushing water up. An engine this big would not
have been needed to irrigate 21 hectares. Due to the magnitude
and extent of the irrigation operations, a tractor and trailer with a
crew of farmworkers, had the full time task of moving the surface
irrigation pipes and sprinklers.
19.3. The farm was highly productive:
19.3.1. It supplied about 60 tons of dry maize per day per growing
season to KSM Exporters, the biggest exporter of maize at
the time;
19.3.2. It supplied cash crops on a wholesale basis to the
municipal markets in Pietermari tzburg, Durban and Stanger
and to retailers and hawkers;
Page 7 of29
19.3.3. It supplied vegetables directly to some 30 to 40 hawkers
who would come with bakkies to buy produce directly from
the farm;
19.3.4. The farm was highly profitable. Cabbages, planted in an
area of 150 hectares of the farm, would have generated a
gross income in 1980 of R22,500,000.00 (twenty-two
million five hundred thousand rand).
19.4. A set of current and historic photographs, depicted the current
cultivation and cultivation around the time of dispossession. The farm
was cultivated in 1980 to the same extent of cultivation as depicted
in a photograph of Broughton in September 2024. The 1979
photographs of the potato crop, cane fields, maize, cabbage and dry
maize crops, depict this.
19.5. There were 7 or 8 tractors on Broughton, trailers, three trucks,
harvesters, planters, fertilizer spreaders, crop sprayers and a
bulldozer. All of this would not have been required if only 21 hectares
was under cultivation. About 80 labourers lived on the farm. In
addition, several workers would be fetched from the nearby township
as day labourers.
19.6. In addition to cultivating, there were cows that provided the family with
milk, sheep and chickens on the farm. About ten to twenty hectares
was under timber.
19.7. Broughton had the following improvements:
19. 7 .1. A 3-bedroom house which was the original family home;
19.7.2. A newly constructed 3-bedroom house that became the
new family home;
19.7.3. A 1000 meter storage shed, a 300 square meter workshop,
staff quarters, an irrigation system and Eskom electricity
supply.
19.8. The Singh family enjoyed a high standard of living and a carefree life.
The Plaintiff's father was the first person in the area to own a jaguar
motor vehicle, and in 1971 his father, like the then Prince Charles,
Page 8 of29
became the owner of a Rover, a sense of pride to the family. In about
1978 two years before the dispossessions, his father built a new
house for the family on Broughton.
19.9. After the dispossessions the family suffered great hardship. The
Plaintiff's father was a broken man and the family fortunes and
lifestyle waned dramatically. They lost their income from commercial
farming and with it, their home. The family was forced to move to a
relative's leased farm where they lived for several years. His father
eked out a living building dams on neighbouring farms from time to
time, with the Plaintiffs help. These endeavours however proved
unsuccessful. Left without financial resources, the Plaintiff's plans of
studying animal husbandry at agricultural college were dashed, and
his siblings were unable to go to University.
19.10. In 1989, his father was able to buy a house for about R350 000 (three
hundred and fifty thousand rand), with a bank loan of R270, 000. (two
hundred and seventy thousand rand). The 400 square meter new
home provided little solace as compared to the large farms he was
dispossessed of. His father eventually became ill and died in March
2010, leaving no estate.
19.11. In contrast Mr Rencke who acquired Broughton due to the
dispossession, carried on the flourishing commercial farming
operations and acquired a chain of Spar supermarkets, a fate which
his father could have enjoyed. Instead, "the man who drove a rover
and a jaguar died without an estate".
[20] For generations the Singh family had been commercial farmers, and had it not
been for the dispossessions, he and his son would have continued the tradition and
enjoyed the good fate of the Renckens.
[21] During cross examination, Mr Singh vehemently denied that only 21 hectares
of Broughton was under irrigation. He emphasized that the Singhs were accomplished
commercial farmers for whom it would make no sense to irrigate and utilize only 21
hectares. The extent of the farming operations on Broughton could not have been
Page 9 of29
conducted on only 21 hectares. He further denied that his age at the time of
dispossession had a bearing on his testimony.
[22] The Plaintiff was a credible and convincing witness whose evidence withstood
cross examination. He clearly, calmly and concisely relayed information and detail
about the family history before and after dispossession, and the farming operations on
Broughton. Whilst issue was taken with his age at the time of dispossession, his
description of the farming operations remained intact and were not challenged. The
common cause fact that Broughton has continued to be farmed on a similar scale
commercially, lends further credence to his testimony about the farming operations. I
accept the Plaintiff's testimony
Testimony of Ajay Singh
[23] Mr Ajay Singh, aged 63 is the first cousin of the original claimant, Fathar Singh,
the Plaintiff's late father. His unrefuted testimony was that from the age of 6 he
frequently drove around Broughton in the company of the Plaintiff's grandfather, the
late Mypath Singh. He observed a tractor engine pumping water from the Mpolweni
river and pipes spraying water on the farm. His visits to the farm were interrupted, but
resumed in 197 4 and continued until 1979, the year before the farm was sold, when
he was 17. During this time, he stayed on the farm at least three weekends each
month.
[24] He corroborated the evidence of the Plaintiff about the extent of irrigation on
Broughton, saying, from what he could see more than 60 to 70 % of Broughton was
under irrigation. He emphasized that most of the farm was green with crops which
could not grow without irrigation. He also corroborated the Plaintiff's testimony about
the scale of the commercial farming enterprise on Broughton, the types of crops
grown, the equipment, the farm buildings and labour force whilst under the Singh
family ownership.
[25] Mr Ajay Singh was a credible and reliable witness whose testimony withstood
cross examination.
Page 10 of 29
Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Valuer, Alan Stephenson
[26] Mr Alan Stephenson, a director of Mills Fitchet Valuers, is a professional valuer
and appraiser. He has years of experience both as an expert witness and an appointed
assessor of this Court. He was instructed by the Plaintiff to conduct a historical
valuation of the subject properties. He was also required to consider whether the
compensation paid at the time of dispossession was just and equitable and if not, what
the shortfall, equated to present day value, is. As noted by him, this entailed that the
figures be updated by the Consumer Price Index ("CPI) as referred to in Florence v
Government of the Republic of South Africa 2014 (6) SA 456 (CC) ("Florence'J.
[27] Mr Stephenson visited Broughton, consulted with the Plaintiff and read the
latter's affidavit in response to the referral report. He interviewed the current owner,
Mr Rencken, telephonically as the latter was not available when he visited the farm.
Mr Stephenson was informed by the Plaintiff that 80 to 90% of Broughton was under
irrigation at the time of dispossession. He based his assessment of 80% under
irrigation after his consultation with the Plaintiff and on the contents of his affidavit. He
did not ask the current owner about the extent of irrigation at Broughton in 1980, as
he was not aware that he knew anything about this. He had spoken to a Mr Ringelman,
the owner of one of the comparable sales, and the current owner of Mieliehoogte. Mr
Ringelman confirmed that 80% of Mieliehoogte was under irrigation at the date of its
dispossession.
[28] Mr Stephenson calculated 80 % of Broughton to comprise 156 hectares of the
194.753 hectare total extent of Broughton. He testified that with the secure water
supply to the farm from the Mpolweni River and the three dams in the area, Broughton
would have had sufficient water to irrigate 156 hectares. Currently almost 100% of
Broughton is under irrigation.
[29] He testified that the Defendant's calculation of 21 hectares under irrigation in
1980, based on historic 1978 aerial imagery reconciled with a google earth computer
generated application, could not be relied upon. The aerial imagery is not of the year
1980 when the disposses sion occurred and it is impossible, he said to make out from
the image what was irrigated. The irrigation pipes were in any case underground, he
Page 11 of 29
pointed out. The clearest indication of the extent of irrigation on Broughton, is that
Mieliehoogte was irrigated to 80 % in 1976 as agreed to by both valuers. There is no
reason, he said, why Broughton, of similar ilk to Millie Hoogte, should not have been
irrigated to 80 % by 1980.
[30] Mr Stephenson calculated the historical market value of irrigated land in 1980
to be between R3,672 (three thousand six hundred and seventy two rand) to R3,678
(three thousand six hundred and seventy eight rand), having regard to the following
three comparable sales in particular:
30.1. 27.1 Comparable Sale 1, being the sale offarm Millie Hoogte No
994, (one of the subject properties) from Mr Farren,( who bought
it on I January 1976 for R16000 (sixteen thousand rand) from the
Plaintiff's father), to E.S. Roodt for R32000. 00 (thirty two thousand
rand) on 10 March 1976. The undisputed value of irrigated land
on Milliehoogte in 1976 was R2,285 (two thousand two hudred
and eighty five rand). Mr Stephenson escalated this value using
the Consumer Price Index to arrive at a value of R3672 to R3,678
h/a for January to May 1980. The just and equitable compensation
agreed upon between the valuers for Milie Hoogte, accepted this
method of valuation.
30.2. Comparable Sale 2, being the sale of Portion 44 of the Farm
Broughton on 2 December 1977. It was undisputed that the value
of irrigated land as of that date had increased to R2,696 (two
thousand six hundred and ninety six rand) as reflected by Mr
Stephenson.
[31] In addition, he noted that comparable sale 5, being the sale of Portion 31 of the
farm Mooiplaas in October 1981 for R193 000.00, (one hundred and ninety three
thousand rand), reflected an increase in the value of dryland to R1995 in 1981 from
R1098 in sale 2 in 1977, a considerable increase in value.
[32] During cross examination, it was put to Mr Stephenson that other than sales 1
and 2 in 1976 and 1977 which had irrigated lands, he did not have a comparable sale
in 1980 under irrigation. Mr Stephenson did not see this as a problem. He said he had
Page 12 of 29
escalated the 1976 and 1977 values of irrigated land using the consumer price index
to arrive at a 1980 value which was conservative in his view. He emphasized that
comparable sale 5 showed there was a 23 to 43% increase in value up to 1981. He
added that the fact that he could not find comparable sales of irrigated land in 1980
must be viewed in context with his comparable s. Mr Stephenson was not challenged
further on this aspect.
Stephenson's valuation calculations
Market value at 1980
(33] Applying the agreed per hectare values, of timber land and arable land as well
as the value of R3675.00 (three thousand six hundred and seventy five) per hectare
to 156 hectares of irrigated land, Mr Stephenson arrived at a total land value of
R644 642.95,(six hundred and forty four thousand six hundred and forty two rand and
ninety five cents) at 1980. To this he added the value of the buildings which he
determined to be R71, 620.00 (Seventy one thousand six hundred and twenty rand)
(at the rate of 11.111 % of the land value), to arrive at a market value of Broughton at
dispossession rounded to the figure of R716,300.00, (seven hundred and sixteen
thousand three hundred rand), as opposed to the purchase price of R188,000.00 (one
hundred and eighty eight thousand rand) paid to Fathar Singh when he was forced to
sell.
Actual Financial loss and Solatium
[34] Mr Stephenson added transfer duty in the sum of R28,252.003 (twenty eight
thousand two hundred and fifty two rand) as actual financial loss and solatium of
R36,489.004 (thirty six thousand four hundred and eighty nine rand) to arrive at a final
rounded market value of R781,240.50 (seven hundred and eighty one thousand, two
hundred and forty rand and fifty cents) upon dispossession in 1980.
Application of factors set out at Section 25 (3) of the Constitution
3 3% on first R10000,4% on excess over R10000, less 67% off the first R5000. Refer to Stephenson's
table attached.
4 Calculated in accordance with the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975.
Page 13 of 29
[35] Mr Stephenson considered the factors set out at Sections 25(3) (a) to (d) of the
Constitution quoted above, for determining just and equitable compensation and made
no adjustments to the 1980 market value. These were:
35.1. Section 25(3) (a), the current use of the property for sugar cane
farming;
35.2. Section 25(3)(b), the history of acquisition and use of the property
for crop and timber farming;
35.3. Section 25 (3) (c), the market value;
35.4. Section 25 (3) (d), the extent of direct state investment, being nil
35.5. Section 25 (3)(e), the purpose of the expropriation, being the
Group Areas Act
[36] After conducting this exercise, Mr Stephenson arrived at the sum of just and
equitable compensation payable at date of dispossession to be R781,240.50 (seven
hundred and eighty one thousand two hundred and forty rand and fifty cents).
Less compensation received
[37] From his calculation of just and equitable compensation of R781240.50,( seven
hundred and eighty one thousand two hundred and forty rand and fifty cents) Mr
Stephenson deducted the sum of R188,000.00 (one hundred and eighty eight
thousand rand) being the compensation or purchase price received upon
dispossession, to arrive at a shortfall of R593, 241.00 (five hundred and ninety three
thousand two hundred and forty one rand) at the time of dispossession at 1980.
[38] The present day value of the shortfall (28 May 1980 to March 2025) using the
Consumer Price Index yielded a figure of R20,274,825.00 ( twenty million, two hundred
and seventy four thousand eight hundred and twenty five rand). This according to Mr
Stephenson is the total compensation due.
[39] Mr Stephenson's table capturing the above calculations is set out below.
Broughton
Market Value as at 28 May 1980 including Land & Improvements (Including Actual Financial Loss and
Seilatium)
Ptn 43 of the Farm Broughton No 925 FT
Calculation of Under Compensation Payable based on Historical Value
Page 14 of29
Land Use
Description Extent Riha
(ha) Total
Irrigated Lands 156.0000 R R 573,300
3,675.00
Timberland (including standing timber) R R 66,700
-value agreed 29.0000 2,300.00
Irrigable Lands (potential to be R R 4,643 irrigated) 0.0000 2,450.00 R 644,643 Arable Land (rain fed) 3.0953 R
1,500.00
Vlei area 2.0000 R -
Yard 4.7000 R -
Total Extent (Ha) 194.7953
Total Land Value R
644,642.95
Contributory Value of buildings at 10% of gross value (11.111111%) R
71,626.99
s25 3(c) -the market value of the property at dispossession (1980) -rounded R
716,300.00
Actual Financial Loss
*Add Transfer Duty on first R10,000 = 3% R
300.00
Add Transfer Duty on excess over R10,000 = 4% R
28,252.00
*Less 67% off the first R5000 (R5000 x 3% = R150 x 67% = R100.50) R
100.50
Sub Total R
28,451.50
Add Solatium R
36,489.00
s25 3(c) -the market value of the property including Actual Financial Losses at dispossession R
(1980) 781,240.50
s25 3(a) -current use {Sugar cane farming) no adjustment. R -
s25 3(b) -the history of acquisition and use of the property (Crop and timber farming) no
adjustment . R -
s25 3(d) -the extent of direct State investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial
capital improvement of the property (No State investment or subsidies were paid thus no
capital improvement) no adjustment. R -
s25 3(e) -the purpose of the expropriation (Group Areas Act). R -
Just and Equitable Compensation (payable at dispossession, including losses). R
781,240.50
Less Compensation received R
(183,000)
Shortfall as @ 1980 R
593,241
Present day Value 28 May 1980 -March 2025 (116.2/3.4 = 34.1764) R
20,274,825
Total Compensation due based on Historical Sales Data plus Actual Financial Losses R
20,274,825
[40] Mr Stephenson's evidence and calculation s were not challenged during cross
examination and remained intact.
Testimony of Defendant's Expert Valuer, Mr Gildenhuys
Page 15 of29
[41] Mr Gildenhuys has been a professional valuer since 1994 and is also a
commercial farmer. In preparing his valuation report, Mr Gildenhuys conducted a
physical inspection of the farm Broughton and consulted the current owner of the farm,
Mr Rencken. His valuation was based on 5 comparable sales which he identified as
enjoying similar attributes to the farm Broughton.
[42] His conclusion that only 21 hectares of Broughton was under irrigation at the
time of disposses sion was based solely on information he received from Mr Rencken
This information emanated from what he described as "google earth technology" which
Mr Rencken had sourced. Mr Gildenhuys had no idea what system or programme Mr
Rencken had applied to source the information, nor he said, did he have any insight
into how Rencken had arrived at his calculation. He had simply accepted Mr
Rencken's calculation. He added that Mr Rencken told him (Gildenhuys) that he was
able to establish the extent of the Singh's original irrigation piping, as he had helped
his father to dig up the Sing h's irrigation pipes, during visits to Broughton on weekends
and holidays when he was at agricultural college.
[43] It was an oversight on his part, he said not to have credited Mr Rencken for his
part in the report. Likewise, he had omitted to state that he had met with the Plaintiff
prior to preparing his report.
[44] Mr Gildenhuys had applied a computer generated calculation from Mr Rencken
to an aerial photograph of Broughton taken in June 1978, obtained from the Surveyor
General's Office. When confronted during cross examination with the improbability of
the google data depiction of irrigated land only on one side of the main irrigation pipe
depicted on the image, he conceded this made no farming sense as the land on the
other side of the pipe was also irrigable through the main irrigation pipe.
[45] Mr Gildenhuys disagreed with Mr Stephenson's use of the consumer price
index to escalate the value of irrigated land from 1976 and 1977 to arrive at a 1980
value of between R3,672 (three thousand six hundred and seventy two rand) to
R3,678 three thousand six hundred and seventy eight rand). Mr gildenhuys's value
was R2300 (two thousand three hundred rand) per hectare for irrigated land in 1980,
Page 16 of 29
which he said was based on farm land price indices. However, neither these indices
nor the calculation based thereon to arrive at R2300 (two thousand three hundred
rand) were mentioned in his report, he conceded. During cross examination he was
unable to explain why he had accepted the use of the Consumer Price Index in the
escalation of values in respect of Mr Stephenson's agreed value of the farm
Mieliehoogte, but rejected the use of the Consumer Price Index for the increase in
value of irrigation land in Broughton.
[46] During cross examination Mr Gildenhuys increased the area of land under
irrigation on Broughton to 34 hectares in 1980 as per an amended calculation he said
he had received from Mr Rencken. It emerged from Mr Rencken's testimony, as
appears below, that this information was relayed to Mr Gildenhuy s whilst he was under
cross examination. How this increased figure was arrived at was not explained.
[47] During cross examination Mr Gildenhuys conceded the following with regard
to the comparable sales he relied upon in his report:
47.1. Comparable Sales 1 and 2 were dissimilar to Broughton as these
farms comprised lowly valued rain fed arable land whereas
Broughton had highly valued irrigated land. They were also much
smaller in extent than Broughton. Comparable Sale 1 was 28.32
ha and Comparable 2 was half the size of Broughton.
47.2. Comparable Sales 3, 4 and 5 involved one Mr Farren, a property
speculator of the White group who bought farms cheaply from
Indian persons who were forced to sell due to the Group Areas
Act, and resold to white persons at a profit. He was unable to
refute that these sales of properties, the prices of which were
distorted by the Group Areas Act, were unreliable.
[48) He further conceded that based on statistics from the Department of Agriculture,
Environmental Affairs and Rural Development for Kwa Zulu Natal, included in his
report, that Broughton was capable of yielding 27 000 (twenty seven thousand) tons
of cabbage per year as testified by Mr Singh and that 21 or 34 hectares of irrigated
Page 17 of 29
land was incapable of yielding 27 000 (twenty seven thousand) tons of cabbage. In
this respect ironically, he corroborated the evidence of the Plaintiff concerning
cabbage yields on Broughton.
[49] Despite conceding that irrigable land was more valuable than rainfed arable
land, Mr Gildenhuys refused to accept that irrigable land had to have a value higher
than R1500 per hectare, the agreed value of rainfed arable land.
[50] Mr Gildenhuys was in my view an unreliable witness. His blind reliance on Mr
Rencken's unexplained data calculation of 21 then 34 hectares under irrigation on
Broughton was unbefitting especially of an expert witness.
[51] The discrepancies between his comparables 1 and 2 and the farm Broughton,
as well as his reliance on distorted comparables 3 to 5, lead me to reject those
comparables.
[52] He compounded the situation by inexplicably refusing to accept the consumer
price index escalation of irrigated land on Broughton, whilst accepting the same for
Mieliehoogte, and refusing to accept the higher value of irrigable land.
[53] Then too there is the unrefuted testimony of Mr Rencken that Gildenhuys spoke
to Rencken whilst the former was under cross examination, conduct unbecoming of
any witness let alone an expert. Finally, Mr Gildenhuys's evidence concerning Mr
Rencken's telling him he was involved with digging up the irrigation pipes on
Broughton was refuted by Rencken himself, as appears in the testimony of Renken
below.
[54] In view of the above I reject the testimony of Mr Gildenhuys.
Testimony of Victor Arthur Rene ken
[55] Mr Rencken is a farmer and the current owner of the farm Broughton. In May
1980, as aforementioned, his late father purchased Broughton through his company,
Page 18 of 29
Mpolweni Properties (Pty) Ltd from the Plaintiff's father when the latter was forced to
sell it pursuant to the Group Areas Act.
[56] The Rencken family moved onto the farm after the Singh family's departure. At
the time Rencken junior was a student border at Western Agricultural College in Mooi
River. His visits to Broughton were only during college holidays. He denied informing
Mr Gildenhuys that he established the extent of the Singhs' original irrigation piping as
he helped dig out the piping during weekend visits to the farm. His father never
removed the original piping as stated by Gildenhuys, but merely added new piping to
the existing piping.
[57] Mr Rencken calculated that 21 hectares of land on Broughton was irrigated in
1980 by using an Application ("App") which he thought was called "Field and Area".
The App, he said can measure distance manually or via GPS. He had downloaded
the App from the App store on his mobile phone. He worked out the extent of the
original underground piping by applying the App technology to hydrants on the ground
surface, which he had learnt from his father was where the connections to the original
pipes were made. The Field and Area App, calculated there were 1.28 km of original
piping which covered an irrigated area of 21 hectares. He could not explain the
mechanisms of this calculation.
[58] He said he digitally reproduced these results on two google maps which he
had downloaded from the Internet. These maps were annexed to the report of Mr
Gildenhuys as pages 305 (stating "Area 21.08 hectares and Perimeter 2.63 km") and
306 of the record (stating "Distance: 1.28km being the distance of the original pipe
line.). He later discovered that he had made a mistake. With reference to the Map on
page 306, he said "I looked at the area marked X to the left of a measurement of
409.07m to give me the extra 10 hectares". There was no explanation as to how he
had arrived at an extra 10 hectares He did not dispute that he had informed Mr
Gildenhuys about this telephonically whilst Gildenhuys was still under cross
examination.
[59] During cross examination, he conceded that the App calculation of the original
pipeline of 1.28km was incorrect, when Mr Chetty pointed out that the figures depicted
Page 19 of29
on the map (p306) in fact added up to 1068.42 metres and not 1.28 km. He was unable
to explain the discrepancy, his best effort being, "my App doesn't let you go over the
line twice", confusing information, which I am not at all sure what to make of. Nor was
he able to explain what the white lines which appeared on the map were.
[60) He too conceded that 21 or 34 hectares of irrigated land could not produce
annual yields of 27000 tons of cabbage, the undisputed annual yield of cabbage on
Broughton, testified by the Plaintiff. In this respect he too corroborated the Plaintiff. He
moreover stated that it would be an act of stupidity for a farmer with an endless water
supply to irrigate only 21 hectares of land.
[61) The invitation by Mr Zulu for this Court to accept firstly, the evidence produced
from an App the name of which Mr Rencken could not remember with certainty, to
accept secondly, the confused explanation of surface detection of underground pipes
based on hearsay evidence, and thirdly to accept an App which rendered inaccurate
calculations, must be declined. So, too, the App's initial calculation of 21 then
unexplained additional calculations of 34 hectares under irrigation, on Broughton in
1980. The evidence is simply not reliable. Had the Defendant wanted this evidence
to be seriously considered they ought at the very least to have brought a digital expert
familiar with the App who could have properly identified it and testified about its
workings. I pause to note that it was disquieting to learn from Mr Zulu during argument,
that he appeared not to be aware before Mr Rencken testified, that the Defendant's
reliance on 21 hectares of irrigated land was based solely on information from this App
[62) I am also of the view that the evidence produced from the App would not be
admissible under Section 15 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act
25 of 2002 (ECTA). Such evidence is a data message as defined in section 15 of ECTA
being, "electronic representations of information in any form."
5 A "data message" is defined in section 1 of ECTA to mean-
"data generated, sent, received or stored by electronic means and includes­
(a) voice, where the voice is used in an automated transaction; and
(b) a stored record-
"data" is defined as "electronic representations of information in any form".
Page 20 of 29
[63] Information obtained from an App constitutes information in a form of a data
message as it is generated and stored by electronic means. Therefore, the peremptory
requirements on the admissibility and evidential weight as provided for by ETCA will
apply.
[64] Section 15 of ECTA provides for the admissibility of data messages as follows:
"15 Admissibility and evidential weight of data messages
(1) In any legal proceedings, the rules of evidence must not be applied so as to deny the
admissibility of a data message, in evidence-
(a) on the mere grounds that it is constituted by a data message; or
(b) if it is the best evidence that the person adducing it could reasonably be
expected to obtain, on the grounds that it is not in its original form.
(2) Information in the form of a data message must be given due evidential weight.
(3) In assessing the evidential weight of a data message, regard must be had to-
(a) the reliability of the manner in which the data message was generated, stored
or communicated;
(b) the reliability of the manner in which the integrity of the data message was
maintained;
(c) the manner in which its originator was identified; and
(d) any other relevant factor.
(4) A data message made by a person in the ordinary course of business, or a copy or printout
of or an extract from such data message certified to be correct by an officer in the service of
such person, is on its mere production in any civil, criminal, administrativ e or disciplinary
proceedings under any law, the rules of a self-regulatory organisation or any other law or the
common law, admissible in evidence against any person and rebuttable proof of the facts
contained in such record, copy, printout or extract."
[65] Given my finding that the evidence from the App is unreliable, it would simply
not pass muster under Sections 15 (3) (a) and (b), and there is no evidence before me
to satisfy Section 15 (3) (c). Apropos section 15 (4) the data message was not made
by a person during the ordinary course of business, but even if it were, it has not been
certified as required by the section. See Ndlovu v Minster of Correctional Services and
Page 21 of29
Another [2006] 4 All SA 165 (W), generally, on the admissibility of computer generated
information. The evidence of Mr Rencken is accordingly not accepted.
Finding on the extent of Irrigated Land on Broughton at Dispossession
[661 On the basis of the evidence of the Plaintiff and Ajay Singh, and given my
rejection of the evidence on behalf of the Defendant, I find that 156 hectares of irrigated
land was under irrigation on the farm Broughton on 28 May 1980, the date of
dispossession.
[67] Similarly, credible and reliable and of assistance to the Court was Mr
Stephenson's evidence and calculations. I accept his per hectare valuation of irrigated
land as escalated using the Consumer Price Index. This is in keeping with the formula
accepted and applied in Florence supra. I accept moreover his evidence of the extent
of irrigated land based on the evidence of the Plaintiff which I have already accepted
for the reasons set out above. His determination of market value and the application
of the factors at Section 25 (3) of the Constitution thereto, is in my view unassailable.
[68] I however do not accept his addition to market value of transfer duty of
R28,451.50 (twenty eight thousand four hundred and fifty one rand and fifty cents)
(calculated on market value of R716300.00 (seven hundred and sixteen thousand,
three hundred rand),) as actual financial loss. Transfer duty is a tax paid by a
purchaser of property. In order for the Plaintiffs father to have incurred transfer duty
as an actual financial loss he would have had to have incurred transfer duty of this
amount post dispossession. There was no evidence that this occurred.
[69] In this regard I respectfully disagree with the finding in Shah v Minister of Rural
Development and Land Reform and Others [2024] ZALCC 40 ("Shah'? to which I was
referred by Mr Chetty, as authority for including transfer duty as actual financial loss. I
note that the Shah judgment does not provide reasons for including transfer duty as
actual financial loss. Nor, as I understand did the Plaintiff in Shah acquire another
property and incur the expense of transfer duty.
Page 22 of 29
[70) I accordingly find that the calculation of market value plus solatium to which the
section 25 (3) factors were applied (of R781240.50 (seven hundred and eighty one
thousand, two hundred and forty rand and fifty cents),) must be reduced by Mr
Stephenson's calculation of transfer duty in the sum of R28451.50 (twenty eight
thousandfour hundred and fifty one rand and fifty cents). This renders a figure of
R752,789.00, (seven hundred and fifty two thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
rand) less compensation of R 188 000 (One hundred and eighty eight thousand rand)
received in 1980, which gives a shortfall on 28 May 1980, the date of dispossession,
of R564,789 (Five hundred and sixty four thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
rand). The value of this figure escalated to the time of the trial, calculated by Mr
Stephenson at my request is R19,302,455 (Nineteen million three hundred and two
thousand four hundred and fifty five rand). I now turn to consider what just and
equitable compensation should be awarded to the Singh family.
Finding on Just and Equitable Compensation
[71) In determining a just and equitable compensation for the Singh family I ·am
enjoined to consider the factors set out at Section 33 of the Restitution Act which states
as follows:
"33. Factors to be taken into account by Court
In considering its decision in any particular matter the Court shall have regard to the following
factors:
(a) The desirability of providing for restitution of rights in land to any person or community
dispossessed as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices;
(b) the desirability of remedying past violations of human rights;
(c) the requirements of equity and justice;
(cA) if restoration of a right in land is claimed, the feasibility of such restoration;
(d) the desirability of avoiding major social disruption;
(e) any provision which already exists, in respect of the land in question in any matter, for that
land to be dealt with in a manner which is designed to protect and advance persons, or
categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination in order to promote the
achievement of equality and redress the results of past racial discrimination;
(eA) the amount of compensation or any other consideration received in respect of the
dispossession, and the circumstances prevailing at the time of the dispossession;
Page 23 of 29
(eB) the history of the dispossession, the hardship caused, the current use of the land and the
history of the acquisition and use of the land;
(eC) in the case of an order for equitable redress in the form of financial compensation,
changes over time in the value of money;
(f) any other factor which the Court may consider relevant and consistent with the spirit and
objects of the Constitution and in particular the provisions of section 9 of the Constitution. "
[72] In Florence supra at paragraph 124, commenting on Section 33, and equitable
redress in the form of compensation, Moseneke ACJ as he then was said:
'Equitable redress must be sufficient to make up for what was taken away at the time of
dispossession. The amount of compensation has to be just and equitable reflecting a fair
balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected after considering
relevant circumstances listed in Section 33 of the Restitution Act. For instance, a history of
hardship caused by the dispossession may entitle a claimant to a higher compensation award
in order to assuage past disrespect and indignity'.
[73) Both Mr Chetty for the Plaintiff and Mr Zulu for the Defendant agreed that in
keeping with the principles established by the Constitutional Court in Florence supra
as applied by this Court and the SCA, (in the judgments discussed below), there
should be an adjustment of their respective current day market values, when
considering the Section 33 factors. This was inter alia because of the stark
discrepancy between their historic market values of Broughton escalated, and the
current unrefuted market value of Broughton, being R41 975 416.00 (forty one million
nine hundred and seventy five thousand, four hundred and sixteen rand). The
discrepancy between the sum of R 19,302,455 (Nineteen million three hundred and
two thousand four hundred and fifty five rand) which I have accepted above as the
adjusted historic market value, and the current unrefuted market value of Broughton,
being R41 975 416.00 (forty one million nine hundred and seventy five thousand, four
hundred and sixteen rand)is indeed stark. Mr Chetty in addition, submitted there
should be an upward adjustment due to the hardship experience by the Singh family
owing to the dispossession.
[74) In Jacobs (in re the Farm UAP) v The Deparlment of Land Affairs and Seven
Others 2016 (5) SA 382 (LCC) ("the first Jacobs judgment"), and Jacobs v Department
Page 24 of 29
of Land Affairs (LCC120/99) [2017] ZALCC 2, ("the second Jacobs judgment"), this
Court on a consideration of the section 33 factors quoted above, adjusted historic
market value upwards in determining just and equitable compensation. Both
judgments were confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") in Jacobs (in re
the farm UAP) v Department of Land Affairs and Jacobs (in re Erf 38) v Department of
Land Affairs (1284/16) and (98212017) ZASCA 122 (26 September 2019).
[75] In respect of the first Jacob judgment, the SCA confirmed the upward
adjustment by this Court of market value of R2,423 million (two million four hundred
and twenty three thousand to R 10 000 OOO(ten million rand), on a consideration of the
factors set out at Section 33 of the Restitution Act. The upward adjustment was made
firstly due to the nature of the hardship suffered owing to the dispossession and
secondly as stated by this Court at paragraph 117, "the grossly inequitable outcome
of applying the actual financial value calculated at the time of the dispossession and
today's market value in the land."
[76] In the second Jacobs judgment, the SCA at paragraph 27, confirmed this
Court's finding that the historic market value of R302 (three hundred and two rand)
escalated by the Consumer Price Index to R52,817.00 (fifty two thousand eight
hundred and seventeen rand), was a paltry figure when compared with the present
day value of the land, a factor it considered under section 33 of the Restitution Act. It
could not fault the Court's reasoning in awarding R780, 000.00 (seven hundred and
eighty thousand rand), as just and equitable compensation.
[77] lzaacs v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others (LCC
20181206) [2023] ZALCC 30 ("lzaacs'J is another case where, due to the discrepancy
between the adjusted historic market value and the then current market value, there
was an upward adjustment. The current market value as it was then, was determined
by this Court to be just and equitable compensation.
[78] In /zaacs, similar to this matter the /zaacsfamilywas dispossessed of their farm
and claimed financial compensation. It was common cause that the historic market
value of the farm adjusted by the Consumer Price Index at the time of the trial was
Page 25 of29
R475,000.00 (four hundred and seventy five thousand rand). However, the then
current market value of the farm, cultivated as a vineyard was R1 .5million. Spilg J found
at paragraph 38 that the evidence demonstrated with a sufficient degree of certainty for the
purposes of section 33, that the family would have remained on the land indefinitely and as
entrepreneurial farmers would have used the land to best advantage. Instead, as he went on
to note, at paragraph 47:
'The dispossession itself resulted in a complete reversal of fortunes for a solid farming
family who had been financially well off. They were effectively reduced to the clothes
on their back, unable to provide even a decent education for their children.'
[79] In the circumstances, he found that the section 33 considerations, in particular
sections 33 (b), (c), (eB) and (f) should result in a substantial increase to the amount
of R475000 (four hundred and seventy five thousand rand) determined as the
Consumer Price Index adjusted value of the erven at the time of dispossession. This
was to mitigate their hardship and suffering which was directly attributed inter alia to
the racially motivated disrespect, hardship indignity and economic exploitation they
endured. Spilg J went on to award the market value sum of R1 .5 million as just and
equitable compensation.
[80] The Jzaacs case is on all fours with this matter. Here too the evidence
demonstrates with a sufficient degree of certainty for the purposes of section 33, that
the Singh family would have remained on the land indefinitely and as entrepreneurial
farmers would have used the land to best advantage. The evidence for the Plaintiff,
made clear that had the fates of the Singhs and Renckens been reversed and the
Singhs been allowed to continue their lucrative farming enterprise , the Singhs too
would have prospered, the Plaintiff too would have gone to agricultural college and
would today be the owner of the farm, Broughton.
(81] Instead, the Singhs were stripped of their ownership of the farm and reduced
to penury. The proud and affluent Senior Mr Singh, eked out a living building dams,
was unable to educate his children as planned and died a broken man without an
estate. His fortunes could have soared, but for the dispossession. This is a scenario
Page 26of29
devoid of equity and justice. and clearly at odds with the equality clause at Section 9
of the Constitution.
[82] Turning again to section 33 of the Restitution Act, I am of the view that of the
section 33 factors which I am required to consider, the following are particularly
significant in this matter:
(b), the desirability of remedying past violations of the Sigh family's human
rights occasioned by the dispossession;
(c) the requirements of equity and justice;
(eB) the history of the dispossession, the hardship caused to the Singh family
the current use of the land as a successful farming enterprise, and the
history of the acquisition and use of the land, as set out above;
(eC) changes over time in the value of money, as per the accepted
Valuations;
(f) any other factor which the Court may consider relevant and consistent with
the spirit and objects of the Constitution and in particular the provisions at
section 9 of the Constitution. As aforementioned, the equality clause at
section 9 of the Constitution was violated by the dispossession.
[83] Regard being had to these factors in particular, and section 33 generally, I come
to the view that given the hardship experienced by the Singh family, the desirability of
remedying the violation of their human rights, and the stark contrast between the
adjusted historic market value of R19,302,455 (Nineteen million three hundred and
two thousand four hundred and fifty five rand) which I have accepted above, and the
current market value of R41,975,416.00, require an upward adjustment of the historic
market value. I am of the view that the tenets of equity, justice and equality, in all of
the circumstances of this case, would best be served if just and equitable
compensation were to be fixed at the current market value adjusted downwards to
account for unforeseen negative contingencies. After careful consideration I conclude
that a downward adjustment of 20% would be equitable. In the circumstances, I
determine just and equitable compensation to be R33,580,332.00 (thirty three million
five hundred and eighty thousand, three hundred and thirty two rand).This, I believe to
Page 27 of29
be equitable redress, sufficient to make up for the booming farming enterprise that
was taken away at the time of dispossession, and an amount that reflects a fair
balance between the public interest and those of the Singh family. It is a just and
equitable amount in all the circumstances, considering the current market value the
history of hardship caused by the dispossession and in my view "assuages past
disrespect and indignity' as referred to in Florence supra.
Costs
[84] In Trustees for the Time being of the Biowatch Trust v the Registrar Genetic
Resources and Others 2009 (6) SA 232 CC at paragraph 24 it was said:
' ... particularly powerful reasons must exist for a court not to award costs against the
state in favour of a private litigant who achieves substantial success in proceedings
brought against it'
[85] This was echoed by this Court in a number of cases. In Elambini Community v
Minister of Rural Development and Others LCCBB/201 2 [2018] ZALCC 11, this Court
said at paragraph 157:
'This Court has, in a number of cases, granted costs against the State and in favour of
private litigants who have achieved substantial success in proceedings against the
State. It has done so on the basis that land claims litigation, deriving as it does from
Section 25 (3) of the Constitution, is in the genre of constitutional litigation. See
Makhukhuza Community Claimants (LCC 04/2009) {2010] ZALCC 26 (18 November
2010) at paragraph 30; Quine/la Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Rural
Development and Others 2010 (4) SA 308 (LCC) at paragraph 35 and 36; Greater
Tenbosch Land Claims Committee and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner
and Others (74106) {2010] ZALCC 25 (15 September 2010).'
[86] As the Plaintiff has achieved success he is entitled to his costs. There is, I believe
no justification for such to be awarded on the punitive attorney client scale as sought
by the Plaintiff.
Page 28of29
Order
[87] I order as follows:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of R1 ,017,912.00 (One
million and seventeen thousand nine hundred and twelve rand), as just and
equitable compensation arising from the dispossession of Portion 7 of (of
1)the Farm Millie Hoogte No 994.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the sum of R33,580,332.00 (Thirty
three million five hundred and eighty thousand three hundred and thirty two
rand), as just and equitable compensation arising from the dispossession
of Portion 43 ( of 12) of the farm Broughton No 925 FT.
3. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs on a scale as between party
and party such to include the costs of counsel.
4. The Defendant shall further pay the qualifying costs of the Plaintiffs expert
witness, Mr Alan Stephenson, such to include the costs of expert reports,
court attendances, consultations and travelling costs.
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
Instructed by:
For the Defendant:
Instructed by: Adv. KP Chetty
Ronell Nathanael & Company
Adv. Zulu
State Attorney, KwaZulu-Natal V
YSMEER
Judge
Land Court
Page 29 of 29