The signing of the Expropriation Act marks the end of all efforts to settle the four-year-old court battle between Saai and the Department of Land Affairs and Rural Development.
It forces organizations that serve the interests of landowners, especially family farmers, to spare no effort or resources in the battle to protect them against the application of "discount clauses" and other calculations designed to undermine market value in compensation, ultimately enabling the state to push for nil compensation.
Under this Act, the expropriating authority—including notoriously corrupt municipal officials—can now attempt to justify expropriation in the "public interest," such as citing a valid land claim targeting a specific farm.
The Constitution provides that an unspecified amount can be deducted from market value if deemed in the public interest. Other factors that may lead to deductions from market value include the current and historical use of the farm, the history of its acquisition, and the state's historical contributions to its development, such as subsidies for boreholes, fencing, or irrigation schemes.
All these deductions combined can result in nil compensation.
For example, if a farm owner's grandfather obtained an Agricultural Credit Board loan in the 1950s to extend a dam or build laborers' quarters at a below-market interest rate, the expropriating authority can argue that the state has already made an investment in the farm. They can then translate that historical value to its present-day equivalent and deduct it from market value, effectively avoiding a situation where the state pays twice for the same asset.
The quantum and percentage of these deductions, which the expropriating authority can apply based on Article 25(3) of the Constitution, are not specified. They will be determined through a cumbersome and expensive legal process, with landowners shouldering the financial burden of litigation. Meanwhile, government officials at local or provincial levels—who initiate expropriations—use taxpayers' money to fund their cases and face no personal financial risk.
The Uncertainty Around Land Claims
One of the greatest risks facing landowners is the uncertainty surrounding land claims. Even 27 years after the original cutoff date for land claims, South Africa still does not have a finalized list of all claimed farms.
According to parliamentary responses, the first reported list of claims in 2002 included 63,000 claims. That number has since grown to approximately 83,000. However, these figures do not reflect the number of farms, as one claim can cover multiple properties—such as the Makgoba land claim in Tzaneen, Limpopo, which affects 775 farms.
Additionally, there is a separate category of 163,000 "new order" land claims filed since 2014. However, these claims have been put on hold by a court ruling until the 1998 claims are resolved.
Saai has compiled a database of all land claims that have surfaced in the public domain through government gazettes, letters to farmers, farmers' associations, parliamentary responses, and direct inquiries with the department. This database is available free of charge at www.landclaim.org, but it remains incomplete compared to the figures cited by government officials in their budget speeches.
This uncertainty is precisely why Saai has pursued legal action to compel the Land Claims Commission and the Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development to release a final list of land claims. No farmer will invest in their land if there is a risk of expropriation without proper compensation.
For 23 years, successive ministers have reported the percentage of finalized land claims in decimal figures. However, the department has declared under oath that it does not have a complete list of land claims from which to verify its reported progress.
In January 2025, Saai won its fourth court victory against the Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development, including a punitive cost order instructing the minister to release the final list of land claims. The minister now faces the risk of arrest for contempt of court.
While the department previously sought a settlement with Saai, the unexpected signing of the Expropriation Act—alongside the ANC's poor track record of expropriation abuse, such as the 2018 Akkerland case in Limpopo—has dramatically escalated risks for farmers, making any potential settlement unlikely.
A finalized land claims list is essential to curbing uncertainty and preventing the unchecked expansion of land claims.
Farmers Do Not Trust the State
Farmers do not trust this Expropriation Act. They do not trust the national department as the expropriating authority—and they certainly do not trust the locally deployed political appointees in municipal offices. The government's track record of land expropriation at below-market value is far too suspect for landowners to feel safe under this legislation.
While certain agricultural business organizations have attempted to reassure landowners that the courts will ensure "fair and equitable compensation," these assurances ring hollow. These same organizations have already lost credibility among primary producers for supporting initiatives such as the Agricultural and Agro-Processing Master Plan and BEE-based export criteria for family farms.
The term "weights and balances" sounds eerily similar to the 1994 political rhetoric used to convince South Africans that racial discrimination in scholarships, job placements, and quotas was a thing of the past—only for these very policies to become entrenched in national legislation.
The History That Fuels Skepticism
This is not just a case of anti-transformation farmers "crying wolf." Farmers' skepticism is rooted in experience.
Saai itself was born out of a 2018 court battle against the attempted expropriation of the Akkerland game farm in Limpopo at just 25% of its market value.
Despite the urgency of the case, no support was forthcoming from major agricultural business networks to assist Agri-Limpopo in defending the landowner in court. This left Limpopo farmers with no choice but to turn to civil rights and independent agricultural organizations such as AfriForum, Solidariteit, and TLU-SA for financial and moral support.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the landowner. The expropriation was overturned, and a cost order was issued against the Minister of Land Reform and Rural Development, the Registrar of Deeds, and the Land Claims Commissioner.
The court found no legitimate land claim and no valid claimant community, ordering the Deeds Office to return the title deed to the rightful owner within 48 hours.
However, the case exposed deep divisions among agricultural organizations, with some prioritizing political positioning over their members' interests.
The Bigger Question: Who Pays for Land Reform?
This is not just a battle of ideas. It is a fundamental economic issue. The push for transformation and asset redistribution—without regard for economic growth or entrepreneurship—poses a major threat to South Africa’s food security and investment climate.
But the real question remains:
In what kind of democracy is an individual expected to personally bear the cost of a national land reform agenda?
Dr Theo de Jager
SAAI
