Flexi Expropriation Act debated in court

Different entities have all brought separate applications with the matter before Judge Vincent Saldanha. The gloves are off as arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Expropriation Act entered its second day in the Western Cape High Court yesterday. AfriForum argued on the impact of property owners of “nil” or minimal compensation despite the market value of land.

This, while the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) Legal argued that “nil” compensation was a wider argument – where a land owner could benefit from a development or land reform. The DA, AfriForum, IRR Legal and Vaderlandstigting have all brought separate applications rolled into one before Judge Vincent Saldanha. The DA argues that the Expropriation Act was not properly passed because provincial delegates in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) did not have the valid authority to vote.

Heads of argument delivered by the DA’s legal team cited that Section 19 of the Act regulates how courts determine compensation when an owner disputes compensation offered for expropriation. They further argued that section 19 contains an “impossible time-limit system”. According to the court documents, the DA cites that the problem with Section 19 was that parties must approach a court within 180 days from the date of the notice of expropriation.

[paywall]

It stated that, however, a notice of expropriation can only be issued after compensation has already been determined or approved by a court and that the court process must happen before the notice of expropriation. During its final argument the party said that at least three or four NCOP votes supporting the Act were allegedly invalid and that the Constitution requires at least five provinces to support certain Bills and that without valid provincial votes, the Act was not lawfully passed.

[/paywall]