A historic legal case has begun in Gauteng as the City of Ekurhuleni defends its decision to seize 34 hectares of land in Driefontein, Boksburg, without paying compensation. This is South Africa’s first major test of land expropriation without compensation, and the outcome could reshape how land reform and property rights are balanced in the country.
A Defining Moment for Land Reform
In 2019, the City of Ekurhuleni expropriated privately owned land under Section 9(3) of the Housing Act, which allows municipalities to take land “required for housing development.”
The property, owned by Business Venture Investments 900, is valued at around R30 million, but the municipality offered zero compensation, arguing that the land had been vacant and unused for more than 30 years. Ekurhuleni maintains that it intends to use the land for social housing and township development.
The parties will meet for court-directed mediation on 31 October 2025, and if they cannot agree, the matter will proceed to trial in the Gauteng High Court in February 2026. The decision is expected to influence how future land expropriation disputes are handled across South Africa.
Why Ekurhuleni Offered Zero Compensation
Former City Manager Imogen Mashazi said the municipality’s offer of nil compensation was based on three main factors:
- The land has been unused for over three decades.
- It has not generated any commercial or social value.
- It was purchased below market value in a 2005 internal company transfer.
Mashazi explained that the land will help the city meet its housing obligations under Section 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to adequate housing. The municipality also argues that both public purpose and public interest apply under Section 25(2) of the Constitution.
According to Ekurhuleni, paying market value for dormant land would make housing development financially unsustainable, while many residents remain in desperate need of homes.
The Owners’ Counter-Argument
The landowners are not challenging the expropriation itself, only the zero compensation. Their lawyers argue that the Expropriation Act of 2024, which allows for nil compensation in specific cases, has been passed by Parliament but has not yet come into effect.
Until the law is active, they say, the Constitution requires compensation that is “just and equitable”, which cannot automatically mean zero.
The owners also claim that the R1 million price tag in 2005 was a book transfer between related entities, not a fair reflection of market value. They believe the property is worth more than R30 million, based on independent valuations.
Legal and Constitutional Questions
This case highlights a key legal gap in South Africa’s land reform framework. The Expropriation Act of 2024 was passed to guide the process of land expropriation, but it has not yet been implemented.
Dr Tanveer Jeewa, a property law lecturer at Stellenbosch University, argues that Ekurhuleni’s interpretation goes beyond what the current legal framework allows:
“Until the Expropriation Act of 2024 commences, nil compensation has no statutory footing. The Constitution requires compensation that is just and equitable, even if it’s below market value.”
Legal experts believe the court’s decision will determine how the principle of “just and equitable” is applied in future land expropriation cases. A ruling for Ekurhuleni could give municipalities more freedom to seize idle land, while a ruling for the owners could reaffirm property protections under the Constitution.
Political and Public Reactions
Freedom Front Plus Warns of Economic Risks
Corné Mulder, leader of the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), criticised the city’s decision, saying it threatens property rights and could destabilise the economy.
“Banks won’t issue loans or mortgages if the state can seize property without paying. That would destroy trust in the system,” he said.
Mulder believes that allowing municipalities to expropriate land without compensation could discourage investment, weaken property markets, and harm financial stability.
ANC Supports Expropriation for Justice
The ANC’s Ekurhuleni regional secretary, Jongizizwe Dlabathi, supports the city’s stance. He said expropriation — even without compensation is vital to correct historic land injustices.
“If the land was acquired through apartheid systems, why should the government of the day pay for that land?”
Dlabathi added that the process was conducted lawfully and that the courts would decide whether it meets the requirements of rationality and fairness.
Economic and Social Impact
This case could have wide-ranging implications for South Africa’s economy and development policies. Analysts predict that if the court sides with Ekurhuleni, it could:
- Lower land values, especially for idle or speculative properties.
- Reduce access to credit, as banks may be hesitant to use land as collateral.
- Slow private investment, due to uncertainty over ownership rights.
Supporters, however, argue that land expropriation without compensation could free up underused land for affordable housing and economic development, especially in densely populated areas.
The Future of Land Reform in South Africa
The Ekurhuleni case represents more than a single legal dispute it is a national test of how South Africa balances economic growth, constitutional rights, and social justice.
The High Court’s ruling will determine whether nil compensation qualifies as “just and equitable” under the Constitution.
If Ekurhuleni wins, municipalities may gain broader powers to reclaim idle land for public projects. If the owners succeed, it will reaffirm property rights and clarify the boundaries of state power.
Whichever way the court rules, the decision will shape the future of land expropriation, housing policy, and economic confidence in South Africa for years to come.
ALSO READ: Shooting at Cappello Boksburg Sparks Panic Among Saturday Night Crowd
