Abstract
The government set the target for redistribution of land to 30% by 2014. They have adopted the "willing-buyer-willing-seller" model that relies on a voluntary transaction between farmers and government to acquire such land. Frustrated at the slow pace of land reform, the ruling party is starting to indicate that the state will in future rely on its expropriation powers to acquire such land.
 
 Section 25 of the Constitution makes it clear that when the state expropriates property, compensation must be paid. The current act, the 1975 Expropriation Act, determines that such compensation must be market value, while the Constitution lists market value as only one of at least five factors that must be taken into account when determining compensation.
 
 There have been various attempts at drafting legislation that will bring compensation practices in line with the Constitution, with the latest Bill published in March 2013. This article focusses on the Green Paper that preceded the Bill, and argues that not much direction is given on how compensation for expropriation should be calculated.
Highlights
Farmers, concerned that South Africa would become the Zimbabwe,2 objected that Xingwana's statements were in conflict with land reform laws setting out the procedures to be followed for expropriation
Does the 2011 Green Paper on Land Reform provide any guidance on the issue of compensation for expropriation? The aim of this paper is to show the potential and the shortcomings of the Green Paper with regard to compensation for expropriation in the land reform context
One of them is expropriating property. This might in some instances be preferred to an open market transaction, such as where the owner seems to ask an unrealistically high price for the property
Summary
When I started my doctorate in 2005, the Minister of Land Affairs, Lulu Xingwana, had just caused an uproar by remarking that land reform will be speeded up by shortening the negotiation period for compensation for individual expropriations. Farmers, concerned that South Africa would become the Zimbabwe, objected that Xingwana's statements were in conflict with land reform laws setting out the procedures to be followed for expropriation. Farmers, concerned that South Africa would become the Zimbabwe, objected that Xingwana's statements were in conflict with land reform laws setting out the procedures to be followed for expropriation They insisted on a reasonable commercial price for farming properties. 69 In Du Toit v Minister of Transport 2006 1 SA 297 (CC) para 17 the Constitutional Court ruled that compensation should be paid under the correct section of the Expropriation Act. See Van der Walt Constitutional Property Law 315-316; Badenhorst, Pienaar and Mostert Law of Property 593-651, Liebenberg Socio-Economic Rights; Muller Impact of Section 26. 69 In Du Toit v Minister of Transport 2006 1 SA 297 (CC) para 17 the Constitutional Court ruled that compensation should be paid under the correct section of the Expropriation Act If it is paid under the wrong section, it may be unconstitutional. Despite ruling that market value is but one of five factors, the court applied the Highlands test, which places market value central in the determination of compensation (para 37)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
