The Constitutional Court has given a family dispossessed of its land in 1902 the best gift for Christmas.
In its unanimous judgment, penned by Justice Jody Kollapen and delivered last Friday, the Constitutional Court stopped a 15-year litigation saga in which the South African Riding for the Disabled Association (Sarda) sought to prevent the Sadien family from taking occupation of the land it received as part of land restitution 15 years ago.
The case centres on the dispossession of Erf 2274 Constantia, acquired by a Sadien forebear in 1902. The Sadien brothers and their families lived on and worked the land, using it to grow and sell produce until they were forcibly removed in 1963 as a direct result of the Group Areas Act, when they were compelled to sell it for almost half its value.
Following the democratic transition, the family lodged restitution claims, which were consolidated, and in 2012, the Land Claims Court ruled they were entitled to restoration, but since the original land could not be returned to them, in 2013, the court ordered that another piece of land of a similar size, the state-owned Erf 142, be instead transferred to the family.
However, Sarda, a non-profit entity offering equine therapy that had leased that land since 1980, challenged this order.
So in 2017, the Constitutional Court ruled that the non-profit organisation could intervene but only for determining “just and equitable compensation”; it could be paid for the improvements it had made to the land.
The court said Sarda could not prevent the transfer of the land to the Sadien family, but despite this, the non-profit continued its litigation.
In 2024, it opposed a Sadien family bid to have its name removed from the Land Court order and instead have its trusts be named as the beneficiaries of the 2013 ruling. Sarda, instead, wanted the court to reverse its judgment that gave Erf 142 to the family as a restitution award.
The court dismissed Sarda’s application, stating it was bound by the 2017 Constitutional Court judgment.
Sarda then asked the apex court to reverse itself, which the court rejected, with
Kollapen stating that the 2017 order was “final in effect and definitive of Sarda’s interest,” which was limited to compensation.
The Concourt found it “puzzling and somewhat troubling” that Sarda considered itself entitled to bring the proceedings, noting its actions amounted to “a refusal to accept the extent of its interest and a disregard of this court’s 2017 order”.
The judgment underscored the critical importance of finality in land restitution, a constitutional imperative to redress apartheid-era injustices.
“The Sadien family has waited long enough to receive the right to land to which they are legally entitled,” Kollapen wrote in the judgment.
He highlighted that the Sadien brothers were dispossessed in 1963 and, over 60 years later, they had yet to regain possession due to “repeated legal challenges”.
In a significant costs order, the court refused to shield Sarda under the Biowatch
principle, which often protects litigants in constitutional matters from adverse costs.
It found Sarda’s attempt to relitigate a settled issue was so “procedurally inept and devoid of merit” that it warranted a departure from the principle.
Sarda’s leave to appeal was refused with costs.
The ruling solidifies the path for the Sadien family’s restoration and sends a clear message that lawful occupiers cannot use protracted litigation to indefinitely delay the constitutional right to land restitution.
