It is clear that the property which Kathryn and her family wish to reclaim was dispossessed from them as a result of past racially discriminatory laws, specifically the Group Areas Act 41 of 1950. Furthermore, it is also clear that Kathryn’s family received no compensation for this dispossession.
However, it would be unlikely that Kathryn and her family would be able to reclaim the land as it is currently the site of multiple schools. Due to the serious lack of resources and adequate infrastructure to provide learners with a quality education, the decision to expropriate functioning schools would not be a rational one. As such, to do so would constitute the arbitrary deprivation of property.
However, Kathryn’s family may be given monetary compensation or alternative state-owned land since restitution of the claimed land is no longer reasonably possible.
In the case …show more content…
The present market value of the property may serve as an indication of its inappropriateness.
Froneman J suggests that in cases where people were forcibly removed from their property, rather than holding the CPI or the current market value of the property to be the only measure of calculating compensation, courts should make use of a more flexible approach.
One of the alternative methods suggested to calculate compensation is that of the 32-day deposit rate.
This refers to an investment with a commercial bank whereby the client invests and earns interest on an amount but can withdraw a portion of the money after giving the bank 32 days’ notice.
Van der Westhuizen J, with Froneman J concurring, held that the 32-day notice deposit rate strikes a balance between the need to fairly and equitably compensate people for their loss, and the hesitance to overburden government
However, it would be unlikely that Kathryn and her family would be able to reclaim the land as it is currently the site of multiple schools. Due to the serious lack of resources and adequate infrastructure to provide learners with a quality education, the decision to expropriate functioning schools would not be a rational one. As such, to do so would constitute the arbitrary deprivation of property.
However, Kathryn’s family may be given monetary compensation or alternative state-owned land since restitution of the claimed land is no longer reasonably possible.
In the case …show more content…
The present market value of the property may serve as an indication of its inappropriateness.
Froneman J suggests that in cases where people were forcibly removed from their property, rather than holding the CPI or the current market value of the property to be the only measure of calculating compensation, courts should make use of a more flexible approach.
One of the alternative methods suggested to calculate compensation is that of the 32-day deposit rate.
This refers to an investment with a commercial bank whereby the client invests and earns interest on an amount but can withdraw a portion of the money after giving the bank 32 days’ notice.
Van der Westhuizen J, with Froneman J concurring, held that the 32-day notice deposit rate strikes a balance between the need to fairly and equitably compensate people for their loss, and the hesitance to overburden government