Msiza v DG of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

"The question presented before this Court concerns the determination of compensation in accordance with section 23(1) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 (“the Act”) due to the applicant. The merits of the matter were decided by Moloto AJ in Msiza v Director-General, Department of Land Affairs, and Others, case number LCC39/01, delivered on 16 November 2004. Moloto AJ held that the applicant qualifies as a “labour tenant” within the definition of the Act. Their application for an award of land pursuant to section 16(1)(a) and (b) of the Act was approved by this Court. 2 2 The specific area of land awarded to the applicant was described as “the area of the homestead, demarcated by the fence on the perimeter of the homestead yard”; “four parcels of cropping land, each 600 x 50 paces in extent”; and “grazing land in extent equal to the rest of Rondebosch less the remainder of the ploughing fields”. During the current trial, it was established that the name “Rondebosch” refers to part of the farm in which the land awarded to the applicant is located. "

The Court ordered'   In terms of section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution, it is decided that the just and equitable compensation to be paid by the first and second respondents (the one paying the other to be absolved) is R1 500 000 (one million five hundred thousand rand) for the acquisition of the property described by this Court as “the area of the homestead, demarcated by the fence on the perimeter of the homestead yard”; “four parcels of cropping land, each 600 x 50 paces in extent”; and “grazing land in extent equal to the rest of Rondebosch less the remainder of the ploughing fields” (the property). 2. The first and second respondents, the one paying the other to be absolved, are directed to make payment to the third and fourth respondent the amount of R1 500 000 (one million five hundred thousand rand) for the acquisition of the property, within 60 days of this judgment. 3. The first and second respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the property is registered in the name of the applicant. 4. The steps referred to in paragraph 3 of this order should be finalized within 90 days of this order. 5. There is no order as to cost