Expropriation Bill Archives

Jan 29

Expropriation Act is now law

By Eviction Lawyers South Africa | Expropriation Bill

A new era, or the same old fault lines?

Last Thursday, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law the much-debated Expropriation Bill (now the Expropriation Act, 2025). This legislative milestone marks the first update to the country’s expropriation framework since the apartheid-era Act of 1975. Unsurprisingly, given its history, the Act is already headed for legal and political controversy. Expropriation is the taking of privately owned property by government (the expropriating authority) for the public good in return for “just and equitable” compensation.

The Act has ignited debate across the political spectrum. The DA and Solidarity promise court challenges, while the EFF has branded the reform a “legislative cop-out”. DA Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure Dean Macpherson has stated there will be “no expropriation of private property on my watch,” sparking discord within the Cabinet.

Will the Expropriation Act right historical wrongs while upholding constitutional values, or is it an unconstitutional framework doomed to cause more problems than it solves? We examine the controversies, opportunities, and societal implications of the Expropriation Act.

Protecting property rights

For many South Africans, “expropriation” invokes fears of blanket land seizures. However, well-crafted expropriation laws can stabilise property rights by making state interventions more transparent and rule-bound. Countries like Germany and Canada have used the right of a government to expropriate private property for public use to encourage development while respecting individual rights.

Features of the new Act

The Act aims to align expropriation procedures with Section 25 of the Constitution, which requires “just and equitable” compensation. There are specific circumstances, such as abandoned or speculatively held land, where “nil compensation” may be just. Disputes can be referred to the courts for final determination. In principle, this ensures adherence to fair administrative procedures mandated by both the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) and the Constitution.

Potential problems with the Act

Despite these safeguards, top legal minds argue that certain sections—particularly Sections 7, 8, and 19—create procedural contradictions. Critics say these provisions create dual legal mechanisms, placing the administrative determination of “just and equitable” compensation in conflict with a court-driven process. The Act is intended to clarify expropriation but it could wind up further complicating our land reform agenda.

This is also the first significant test of the GNU. The ANC has been developing this legislation for the past 10 years, and is now dependent on DA support, but the DA is opposed to nil compensation. Beyond the DA, there is broad political resistance. In addition to the EFF’s dismissal, the Freedom Front Plus accuses the Act of overreach; Solidarity has concerns about business confidence and property rights; and COSATU backs the Act as a tool to expedite land reform without inflated payouts.

Possible benefits of the Act

If the Expropriation Act is implemented transparently and thoughtfully, it could facilitate land reform and accelerate transformation. The Act has the potential to activate idle assets. Large tracts of derelict or unused land could be repurposed for social housing and agricultural projects, revitalising local economies. A workable framework could attract socially conscious investors and encourage public–private partnerships. It could even strengthen Ubuntu, which holds that community wellbeing and individual prosperity are intertwined. A fair expropriation mechanism could reflect Ubuntu by balancing historical redress with individual property rights.

Key points for landowners, investors and communities

Property owners are understandably worried about the risk of arbitrary land seizure. It will hopefully reassure them to know that the Act ensures that expropriation serves a clear public purpose or interest. Owners can challenge decisions or seek mediation under the law, consistent with PAJA and constitutional requirements for fair administrative action. However, litigation costs could rise if there are disputes over the interpretation of “nil compensation”.

For prospective buyers and investors, a robust expropriation regime could reduce unpredictability. Investors keen on projects with social impact may benefit if underutilised land is made available, provided the courts uphold the Act in a clear manner. However, legal action threatened by various political parties may place new land deals on hold.

For communities, an effective expropriation process could aid restitution and support community-based agricultural projects and social housing, provided processes are consistent with the Constitution and PAJA. Civil society must remain vigilant to ensure nil compensation is not misused.

Creating hope for the future

The history of land ownership in South Africa is marked by dispossession, pain and a search for justice. The Expropriation Act 2025 has the potential to be a turning point for inclusive development, but it could also spark fresh legal and social conflict. The Act’s acceptance and effectiveness will depend on integrity of application and the robustness of the judicial system in its enforcement. The Act will undoubtedly be tested in the courts. We will be watching avidly.

If you have questions or concerns about the Expropriation Act

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. If you have concerns or questions about the Expropriation Act and how it might affect you or your property, contact Simon on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za

Further reading:

Mar 02

Expropriation Bill unconstitutional in the absence of a constitutional amendment

By Eviction Lawyers South Africa | constitutional law, Expropriation Bill

Reprinted from BizCommunity, by Gary Moore – 2022-02-24

The 1975 Expropriation Act authorises the Minister of Public Works to expropriate property for public purposes, and provides for the payment of compensation to the dispossessed owner, not exceeding the property’s market price, determined either by agreement between government and the owner, or by a court.

The Constitution says property may be expropriated in terms of “law of general application” for a public purpose, or in the public interest (including for land reform), and subject to compensation in an amount either agreed by those affected or decided by a court.

The amount of compensation, says the Constitution, 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 certain listed ones.

In 2020, the Minister tabled an Expropriation Bill intended to replace the 1975 Act with one which replicates the 1975 statute by and large, but which includes clauses that take into account provisions of the Constitution.

The 2020 Bill repeats in broadly similar terms the 1975 Act’s provisions which say that, if the Minister is considering expropriating property, she may authorise an inspector to enter a particular property to ascertain if it is suitable and to determine its value.

But while the 1975 Act says, if the occupier doesn’t consent to the inspector’s entering any building on the land, the inspector can nevertheless do so on 24 hours’ notice, the Bill in contrast says (in deference to the fundamental rights to dignity and privacy), if the occupier doesn’t consent to the entry and inspection, the government must get a court order authorising access.

Like the 1975 Act, the Bill (with minor adjustments) says that, in determining the amount of compensation to be paid, account must not be taken of the fact that the property has been taken without consent, or of any enhancement or depreciation in its value which is attributable to the purpose for which it was expropriated.

The Bill then repeats the Constitution’s property clause wording, that the amount of compensation 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.

But the 2020 Bill then takes a step too far and ceases to be “law of general application” envisaged in the Constitution. The Bill contains a clause which seeks to stipulate when it may be just and equitable for “nil” compensation to be “paid”. The word nil is the contracted form of the Latin word nihil, which means “nothing”.

The clause states that it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be “paid”, “where land is expropriated in the public interest”.

The Bill’s clause then lists precise circumstances which it deems to be relevant, and to which it requires that regard be had in determining when it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be “paid” where land is expropriated in the public interest.

These listed circumstances are (slightly abbreviated):
* where the land is not being used and the owner’s main purpose is not to develop it or use it to generate income, but to benefit from appreciation of its market value;
* where an organ of state holds land that it acquired for no consideration and is not using for its core functions and is not reasonably likely to require for those functions;
* where the owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it;
* where the land’s market value is equalled or exceeded by the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in the acquisition and capital improvement of the land; and
* when the nature or condition of the property poses a health, safety or physical risk to persons or other property.

But it is not for this clause of the 2020 Expropriation Bill or for any Act of Parliament to specify circumstances when it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be “paid”.

It is not for the legislature to lay down how the courts should interpret the Constitution’s property clause in particular cases, and the Constitution does not envisage that the legislature may do so.

This clause in the Expropriation Bill infringes the separation of powers which is implicit in the Constitution.

The separation of powers does not imply rigidly demarcated functional roles between the judicial and legislative branches. But, says the Constitutional Court, there is need for caution on the part of each such branch of government against intruding into the constitutionally-assigned operational space of the other one.

The Constitution envisages that the superior courts decide constitutional matters. Whether an amount of compensation offered for an expropriation is a just and equitable amount is just such a constitutional matter.

It is not in the compass of the legislature to encroach on the domain of the courts by prescribing circumstances when nil compensation would be just and equitable, unless an amendment of the Constitution is adopted which alters the property clause in the Constitution to allow for such legislation.

Indeed, there was a very recent attempt to bring about just such an amendment to the property clause in the Constitution, but the attempt failed. A Constitution Amendment Bill of 2021 sought to amend the property clause so as to provide that where land and its improvements are expropriated for land-reform purposes the amount of compensation may be nil, and that legislation must set out circumstances where the amount of compensation is nil. That Constitution Amendment Bill failed to achieve the required affirmative vote of two thirds of the members of the National Assembly and has accordingly lapsed.

In the circumstances, the 2020 Expropriation Bill’s clause that seeks to stipulate when it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be paid is unconstitutional and invalid, and the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Public Works should accordingly remove the clause from the Bill.

SD Law can help

If you have concerns about the Expropriation Bill 2020 or your property and want to talk to an expert, contact Simon on 087 550 2740 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za

Simon Dippenaar & Associates Inc. is a law firm in Cape Town and Gauteng with eviction lawyers and attorneys specialising in eviction law.

David Mabuza’s assurance was misleading

By Eviction Lawyers South Africa | COVID 19, Eviction news, Eviction notice, Eviction orders, Expropriation Bill, Farm evictions

Four months after the Deputy President, David Mabuza, assured South Africans that no farmer will be evicted from their farms under the government’s land redistribution programme, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) officials have been going around giving farmers one-week notices to vacate their farms.

On 22 October 2020, while answering questions in the National Assembly on the government’s planned 700 000 hectare land redistribution programme, Mabuza unambiguously stated that “…those people that are currently occupying those farms (identified for redistribution), I don’t think there is any intention to forcefully remove people at this point in time”.

Mabuza’s assurance was obviously misleading because Mr Ivan Cloete, a successful pig farmer at Colenso farm in the Western Cape was recently served with a 7-day notice to vacate his farm by officials from the DALRRD’s Western Cape provincial offices. The claim by these officials that Mr Cloete does not qualify to continue practising his farming activities at Colenso farm is nothing but naked abuse of power designed to intimidate him into giving up his livelihood. The DA will not stand by and allow the use of dubious eviction orders to harass and victimise a defenceless farmer.

The unfair treatment of Mr Cloete appears to confirm well-founded fears among farmers that 700 000 hectare scheme was now being used as a cover by DALRRD officials to intimidate them into vacating their farms. What makes this state-sanctioned intimidation worse is that the farms of some of the farmers facing this intimidation do not form part of the 700 000 hectare program.

The DA has always been on record arguing that the chaotic approach to land reform will open up avenues for corrupt abuse of the process and disrupt the agricultural sector:

On 10 March 2020, I warned members of the Portfolio Committee that, even without data or information on the monitoring and evaluation of land reform, Departmental officials had been issuing eviction notices haphazardly.

During a committee session on 01 December 2020, I told committee members that farmers in the Western Cape, Gauteng and Mpumalanga who have been on the land for years, had received letters to vacate in the past year.

It is ominous that while the controversial section 25 amendment is being debated in Parliament, farmers are already facing unrelenting pressure to vacate their farms from a Department that has gone rogue. Mabuza and his colleagues in government have an obligation to stop this reckless targeting of farmers before it inflicts irreparable damage to the agricultural sector and the economy.

Reprinted from Politics Web by Annette Steyn

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a Cape Town law firm of specialist eviction lawyers, now operating in Johannesburg and Durban, helping both landlords and tenants with the eviction process. Contact one of our attorneys on 086 099 5146 or sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za if you need advice on the eviction process or if you are facing unlawful eviction.

Expropriation Bill