By Stephan Hofstätter
In a resounding victory for land owners, the Constitutional Court has dismissed the state's appeal against an order to pay damages to a farmer whose land was invaded by 40 000 squatters.
The landmark ruling was hailed by organised agriculture and legal analysts as spelling out for the first time how the state should deal with land invasions, and for underscoring the independence of the South African judiciary.
It puts the onus on the state to execute eviction orders in time, and provide squatters with alternative housing.
| 'The rule of law has survived - the interests of justice were serve' |
The Gabon squatter camp on Modderklip farm on the outskirts of Benoni in Gauteng, made international headlines at the height of Zimbabwe land grabs in 2000, when a small settlement mushroomed to almost 20 000 and later doubled.
Continues Below ↓
Despite being granted an eviction order, landowner Braam Duvenhage was instructed to pay a deposit of R1,8-million to the sheriff of the court to have it executed. This was far greater than the value of the land and sparked fears that state sanctioned land grabs were spreading to South Africa.
Duvenhage, who did not attend the handing down of judgment on Friday, was elated at the outcome.
"The rule of law has survived - the interests of justice were served in court today," he said.
Duvenhage, 74, bought the land in 1965 and turned it into thriving soya, maize and vegetable farm. An increase in violent crime in the district following the land invasion prompted him to retire.
| 'People can tell you to bugger off on your own land' |
"You can't be baas van die plaas (boss of the farm) anymore," he said. "People can tell you to bugger off on your own land."
He said his lawyers had not yet quantified his loss of earnings from the five-year land invasion, but expected it to run into millions. The case will set a precedent for damages claims throughout the country.
Laurie Bosman, president of farmers' union Agri-SA, said: "This ruling emphasises the property rights enshrined in our constitution and spell out the state's legal obligations during a land invasion."
He said any other ruling "would have been a disastrous blow for all property owners, not just farmers". It would also have harmed foreign investment.
Bosman said the judgment "highlights the independence of our legal processes".
Using uncharacteristically strong language, Acting Chief Justice Pius Langa delivered a unanimous judgment largely confirming the substance of last year's Supreme Court of Appeals ruling, which also entitles the squatters to continue occupying Modderklip farm until suitable alternative land was found.
"Land invasions of this scale threaten far more than the private rights of a single owner and have the... potential to have serious implications for stability and public peace," said Langa.
He stressed the state was obliged to ensure the execution of an eviction order did not cause "large-scale disruptions in the social fabric or undermine the rule of law".
"Failure by the state to act appropriately in such circumstances means that Modderklip could not look upon the state and its organs to protect them from such invasions," he said.
Gabon squatter camp leader, Richard Zwane, said the community would accept the judgment and was grateful to be allowed to remain on the land until alternative accommodation was made available.
"It is not our intention to live here by force," he said, noting that squatters would not object to moving if suitable alternative land and housing was provided.
Nana Zenani, spokesperson for land and agriculture minister Thoko Didiza, said: "We will obviously respect the judgment coming out of the Constitutional Court, but it is too early to comment on the implications."
- This article was originally published on page 1 of Saturday Argus on May 14, 2005
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
