CCT127/13

[2014] ZACC 22

2014 (6) SA 456 (CC)

2014 (10) BCLR 1137 (CC)

Mosenke ACJ Majority judgment

Zondo J separate judgment

Van Der Westhuizen separate judgment

18 February 2014

26 August 2014

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3742

Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the SCA: Florence v The Government of the Republic of South Africa (550/12) [2013] ZASCA 104 (13 September 2013).

Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 — section 33 — purposes of equitable redress — method of escalating past loss to present-day value Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 — section 35 — remedial powers — a court’s power to award costs of erecting a memorial plaque. Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal, hearing an appeal from the Land Claims Court. The main appeal entailed the determination of the appropriate means by which to convert past loss of land – due to past racially-discriminatory laws – into present-day monetary terms for the calculation of financial compensation under section 33 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 (Act). The cross-appeal dealt with the duty of the state to bear the costs of erecting a memorial plaque on the property from which the claimants were evicted. The majority judgment endorsed the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Farjas Pty (Ltd) v Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others [2012] ZASCA 173. It found that the Consumer Price Index was the appropriate measure to calculate the increase in the value of the loss of land over time. To use another investment index would result in over-compensation. Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed. The separate concurring judgment held that the courts do not have power to grant “alternative relief” in terms of section 35 of the Act where the relief of restoration of a right in land or equitable redress is granted. Ms Florence was awarded equitable redress and therefore could not, in addition, claim compensation for the memorial plaque. The dissent would have used an ampler means to calculate the compensation due to the claimants. Majority: Moseneke ACJ (Skweyiya ADCJ, Dambuza AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J and Zondo J concurring, and Khampepe J concurring only on the main appeal) Separate concurrence: Zondo J (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Dambuza AJ Jafta J, and Madlanga J concurring) Dissent: Van der Westhuizen J (Cameron J, Froneman J and Majiedt AJ concurring, and Khampepe J concurring only on the cross-appeal)