At the Intersection between Expropriation Law and Administrative Law: Two Critical Views on the Constitutional Court's Arun Judgment




section 33, administrative law, lawfulness, legality principle, subsidiarity principles, expropriation, deprivation, section 25, property clause, constitutional property law, Arun case


In Arun the Constitutional Court held that section 28 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) vests all land indicated as public roads on a development plan in the local authority upon approval of such a plan. This includes land that is in excess of the normal need of the development. The appellant must hence be compensated for the "expropriation" of such excess land if the provision is to comply with section 25(2) of the Constitution. This ruling is problematic for both expropriation law and administrative law.

In terms of section 25(2) four objections may be raised against the Arun decision. Firstly, it disregards the function of the public interest requirement for expropriation, as understood in view of the law-of-general-application requirement (which, in turn, is informed by the legality principle). The state cannot expropriate property for purposes that are ultra vires (or ulterior to) the authorising legislation. Yet the Arun court seems to allow just this by permitting the local authority to acquire land unrelated to the normal need of the development against payment of compensation instead of setting the attempted expropriation aside. The judgment, secondly, ignores the role of compensation under section 25(2). Merely paying compensation to an affected party cannot turn an invalid expropriation into a valid one, since compensation is merely the result of a valid expropriation and not a justification for it. Thirdly, it makes the distinction between deprivation and expropriation pivot on the effect of the property limitation, which is unable to properly distinguish between these two forms of limitation in all instances. Finally, Moseneke DCJ's ruling seems to afford an election to litigants who are affected by materially defective expropriations to choose whether to accept the expropriation and claim compensation or to have it reviewed and set aside under PAJA. This election, if it indeed exists, subverts the principles of expropriation law and may have negative repercussions for both expropriation law and administrative law, especially in view of the single-system-of-law principle.

From an administrative law perspective the authors identify four considerations that could assist courts in determining whether administrative law should be considered, if not applied, in a given case. The first is the internal coherency of the law in view of the subsidiarity principles. The subsidiarity principles provide guidelines for courts to decide cases where two fundamental rights might be applicable. A principled approach is necessary in this context to ensure that the law operates as a single system and displays the positive characteristics of such a system. The fact that Moseneke DCJ preferred to award compensation to Arun instead of reviewing the expropriation under PAJA runs contrary to these principles and seems to result in an outcome which endorses – instead of prevents – administrative injustice. Secondly, the Constitutional Court's refusal to follow PAJA by reason of its being onerous on the appellant contradicts earlier case law where the Court held that time-periods under the Act cannot be circumvented by reason of their being burdensome.


Google_Scholar_12031.png    ScienceOpen_Log034321.png


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

PJH Maree, Stellenbosch University

Post-doctoral research fellow


Badenhorst, Pienaar and Mostert Silberberg and Schoeman

Badenhorst PJ, Pienaar JM and Mostert H Silberberg and Schoeman's The Law of Property 5th ed (LexisNexis Durban 2006)

Bezuidenhout Compensation

Bezuidenhout K Compensation for Excessive but Otherwise Lawful Regulatory State Action (LLD-thesis University of Stellenbosch 2015)

Bleazard and Budlender "Remedies in Judicial Review Proceedings"

Bleazard J and Budlender S "Remedies in Judicial Review Proceedings" in Quinot G (ed) Administrative Justice in South Africa: An Introduction (Oxford University Press Oxford 2015) 237-278

Daly Theory of Deference

Daly P A Theory of Deference in Administrative Law: Basis, Application and Scope (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2012)

Davis 2006 Acta Juridica

Davis DM "To Defer and Then When? Administrative Law and Constitutional Democracy" 2006 Acta Juridica 23-41

De Ville 2006 PELJ

De Ville JR "Judicial Deference and Différance: Judicial Review and the Perfect Gift" 2006 9(2) PELJ 41-89

Du Plessis Re-interpretation of Statutes

Du Plessis LM Re-interpretation of Statutes (LexisNexis Butterworths Durban 2002)

Dyzenhaus "Politics of Deference"

Dyzenhaus D "The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy" in Taggart M (ed) The Province of Administrativ Law (Hart Oxford 1997) 279-307

Gildenhuys Onteieningsreg

Gildenhuys A Onteieningsreg 2nd ed (Butterworths Durban 2001)

Gildenhuys and Grobler "Expropriation"

Gildenhuys A and Grobler GL "Expropriation" in Kanjan A (ed) Law of South Africa (LexisNexis Durban 2012) Paras 1-156

Harlow and Rawlings Law and Administration

Harlow C and Rawlings R Law and Administration 3rd ed (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2009)

Hoexter 2000 SALJ

Hoexter C "The Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative Law" 2000 SALJ 484-519

Hoexter Administrative Law

Hoexter C Administrative Law in South Africa 2nd ed (Juta Claremont 2012)

Hoops 2016 SALJ

Hoops B "Specificity of Expropriation Statutes as a Safeguard against Third Party Transfers for Economic Development: Lessons from German Law for New Expropriation Legislation in South Africa?" (2016 forthcoming) SALJ

Kleyn 1996 SAPL

Kleyn DG "The Constitutional Protection of Property: A Comparison between the German and the South African Approach" 1996 SAPL 402-445

Liebenberg Socio-economic Rights

Liebenberg S Socio-economic Rights: Adjudication under a Transformative Constitution (Juta Cape Town 2010)

Marais 2015 PELJ (Part I)

Marais EJ "When Does State Interference with Property (Now) Amount to Expropriation? An Analysis of the Agri SA Court's State Acquisition Requirement (Part I)" 2015 PELJ 2983-3031

Marais 2015 PELJ (Part II)

Marais EJ "When Does State Interference with Property (Now) Amount to Expropriation? An Analysis of the Agri SA Court's State Acquisition Requirement (Part II)" 2015 PELJ 3033-3069

Marais 2016 SALJ

Marais EJ "A Common-Law Presumption, Statutory Interpretation and Section 25(2) of the Constitution – A Tale of Three Fallacies. A Critical Analysis of the Constitutional Court's Arun Judgment" (2016 forthcoming) SALJ

Maree Investigating an Alternative Administrative-Law System

Maree PJH Investigating an Alternative Administrative-Law System in South Africa (LLD-thesis University of Stellenbosch 2013)

Maree "Administrative Authorities in Legal Context"

Maree PJH "Administrative Authorities in Legal Context" in Quinot G (ed) Administrative Justice in South Africa: An Introduction (Oxford University Press Oxford 2015) 27-64

Quinot and Liebenberg 2011 Stell LR

Quinot G and Liebenberg S "Narrowing the Band: Reasonableness Review in Administrative Justice and Socioeconomic Rights Jurisprudence in South Africa" 2011 Stell LR 639-663

Roux "Property"

Roux T "Property" in Woolman S, Roux T and Bishop M (eds) Constitutional Law of South Africa 2nd ed (Juta Cape Town 2003) 46-1 – 46-37

Slade 2013 TSAR

Slade BV "The Less Invasive Means Argument in Expropriation Law" 2013 TSAR 199-216

Slade 2016 PELJ

Slade BV "Compensation for What? An Analysis of the Outcome in Arun Property Development (Pty) Ltd v Cape Town City" 2016 PELJ 1-25

Steyn Uitleg van Wette

Steyn LC Die Uitleg van Wette 5th ed (Juta Cape Town 1981)

Van der Merwe Sakereg

Van der Merwe CG Sakereg 2nd ed (Butterworths Durban 1989)

Van der Sijde Reconsidering the Relationship between Property and Regulation

Van der Sijde E Reconsidering the Relationship between Property and Regulation: A Systemic Constitutional Approach (LLD-thesis University of Stellenbosch 2015)

Van der Walt Constitutional Property Clauses

Van der Walt AJ Constitutional Property Clauses: A Comparative Analysis (Juta Cape Town 1999)

Van der Walt 2008 ASSL

Van der Walt AJ "Constitutional Property Law" 2008 ASSL 231-264

Van der Walt 2008 CCR

Van der Walt AJ "Normative Pluralism and Anarchy: Reflections on the 2007 Term" 2008 CCR 77-128

Van der Walt Constitutional Property Law

Van der Walt AJ Constitutional Property Law 3rd ed (Juta Cape Town 2011)

Van der Walt Property and Constitution

Van der Walt AJ Property and Constitution (PULP Pretoria 2012)

Van der Walt 2014 ASSL

Van der Walt AJ "Constitutional Property Law" (2014 forthcoming) ASSL

Van der Walt and Botha 1998 SAPL

Van der Walt AJ and Botha H "Coming to Grips with the New Constitutional Order: Critical Comments on Harksen v Lane NO" 1998 SAPL 17-41

Van der Walt and Marais 2012 LitNet Akademies

Van der Walt AJ and Marais EJ "Eiendomsverlies Weens Verkrygende Verjaring: ʼn Ongekompenseerde Onteiening – Of Nie?" 2012 LitNet Akademies 298-321

Van Wyk Planning Law

Van Wyk J Planning Law 2nd ed (Juta Cape Town 2012)

Van Wyk 2016 PELJ

Van Wyk J "Planning and Arun's (Not So Straight and Narrow) Roads" 2016 PELJ 1-29

Wiechers Administratiefreg

Wiechers M Administratiefreg 2nd ed (Butterworths Durban 1984)

Woolman and Botha "Limitations"

Woolman S and Botha H "Limitations" in Woolman S, Roux T and Bishop M (eds) Constitutional Law of South Africa 2nd ed (Juta Cape Town 2006) ch 34

Case law

South Africa

Administrator, Cape v Associated Buildings Ltd 1957 2 SA 317 (A)

Administrator, Cape Province v Ruyteplaats Estates (Pty), Ltd 1952 1 SA 541 (A)

Administrateur, Transvaal v Quid Pro Quo Eiendomsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk 1977 4 SA 829 (A)

Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy 2013 4 SA 1 (CC)

Arun Property Development (Pty) Ltd v Cape Town City 2015 2 SA 584 (CC)

Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2004 4 SA 490 (CC)

Beckenstrater v Sand River Irrigation Board 1964 4 SA 510 (T)

Belinco (Pty) Ltd v Bellville Municipality 1970 4 SA 589 (A)

Broadway Mansions (Pty) Ltd v Pretoria City Council 1955 1 SA 517 (A)

Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association v Harrison 2011 4 SA 42 (CC)

Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus 1999 3 SA 304 (LAC)

Chirwa v Transnet Ltd 2008 2 SA 24 (CC)

City of Cape Town v Arun Property Developments (Pty) Ltd 2014 JDR 0786 (SCA)

City of Cape Town v Helderberg Park Development (Pty) Ltd 2008 6 SA 12 (SCA)

Club Mykonos Langebaan Ltd v Langebaan Country Estate Joint Venture 2009 3 SA 546 (C)

Estate Geekie v Union Government 1948 2 SA 494 (N)

Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999 1 SA 374 (CC)

Fernwood Estates Ltd v Cape Town Municipal Council 1933 CPD 399

First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service; First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Minister of Finance 2002 4 SA 768 (CC)

Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development Ltd 2005 4 SA 67 (SCA)

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 1 SA 46 (CC)

Groengras Eiendomme (Pyt) Ltd v Elandsfontein Unlawful Occupants 2002 1 SA 125 (T)

Harksen v Lane 1998 1 SA 300 (CC)

Harvey v Umhlatuze Municipality 2011 1 SA 601 (KZP)

Joyce & McGregor Ltd v Cape Provincial Administration 1946 AD 658

Judicial Service Commission v Cape Bar Council 2013 1 SA 170 (SCA)

L F Boshoff Investments (Pty) Ltd v Cape Town Municipality; Cape Town Municipality v L F Boshoff Investments (Pty) Ltd 1969 2 SA 256 (C)

Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson 2003 2 SA 460 (SCA)

MEC for Education: KwaZulu-Natal v Pillay 2008 1 SA 474 (CC)

MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Kirland Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye & Lazer Institute 2014 3 SA 481 (CC)

Minister of Education v Harris 2001 4 SA 1297 (CC)

Minister of Health v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2006 2 SA 311 (CC)

Minister of Minerals and Energy v Agri South Africa 2012 5 SA 1 (SCA)

Nokotyana v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 2010 4 BCLR 312 (CC)

Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town 2004 6 SA 222 (SCA)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa 2000 2 SA 674 (CC)

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers 2005 1 SA 217 (CC)

President of the Republic of South Africa v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd 2005 5 SA 3 (CC)

Pretoria City Council v Modimola 1966 3 SA 250 (A)

Redelinghuys v Stadsraad van Pretoria 1990 1 SA 555 (T)

Reflect-All 1025 CC v MEC for Public Transport, Roads and Works, Gauteng Provincial Government 2009 6 SA 391 (CC)

South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence 2007 5 SA 400 (CC)

South Peninsula Municipality v Malherbe 1999 2 SA 966 (C)

Tongaat Group Ltd v Minister of Agriculture 1977 2 SA 961 (A)

Tswelopele Non-Profit Organisation v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality 2007 6 SA 511 (SCA)

Van Eck and Van Rensburg v Etna Stores 1947 2 SA 984 (A)

White River Village Council v H L Hall & Sons Ltd 1958 2 SA 524 (A)


BVerfGE 58, 300 (1981)

United States

Dolan v City of Tigard 512 US 374 (1994)


Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Expropriation Act 63 of 1975

Expropriation Bill B4D-2015

Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996

Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 (C)

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013

Township Ordinance 33 of 1934 (C)

Western Cape Land Use Planning Act 3 of 2014



How to Cite

Marais, E., & Maree, P. (2017). At the Intersection between Expropriation Law and Administrative Law: Two Critical Views on the Constitutional Court’s Arun Judgment. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 19, 1–54.




Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.