 |
SOUTHBROOM KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
|
 |
|
LAND CLAIMS - BACKGROUND |
||
|
QUICK LINKS
NEWS & UPDATES LAND CLAIMS ON THE LOWER SOUTH COAST
HOME IMPROVEMENT OTHER BUSINESSES |
Click on LAND CLAIMS UPDATE for news on the latest developments. THE ACT The Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 provides for the restitution of rights in land to persons or communities dispossessed of such rights after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices. Claims for restitution had to be lodged by not later than 31 December 1998. "Right in land means any right in land whether registered or unregistered, and may include the interest of a labour tenant and sharecropper, a customary law interest, the interest of a beneficiary under a trust arrangement and beneficial occupation for a continuous period of not less than 10 years prior to the dispossession in question" "Restitution of a right in land means the restoration of a right in land; or equitable redress." "Restoration of a right in land means the return of a right in land or a portion of land." "Equitable redress means any equitable redress, other than the restoration of a right in land, including the granting of an appropriate right in alternative state-owned land; and/or the payment of compensation" by the State. THE CLAIMS Two community claims of tenancy (beneficial occupation for a continuous period of not less than 10 years prior to the dispossession in question) were lodged in respect of land between the tribal authorities in the west; the Mbizane River in the north; the Tongazi River in the south; and the Admiralty reserve in the east. This area includes the municipal townships of Southbroom, Marina Beach, San Lameer, Trafalgar, Palm Beach and Munster. GAZETTED NOTICE On 14 November 2003, those portions of the claims that related to rural land, together with three urban erven within the Southbroom municipal boundary that still have title deed descriptions that refer to farm portions, were published in the Government Gazette. Those portions of the claim that related to land within municipal townships were omitted from the public notice. AFFECTED TITLE HOLDER'S ACTION Affected title holders formed the Lower South Coast Claims Group (LSCCG) and are currently validating the claim collectively. The majority have each remitted R3,000 to the LSCCG to cover the costs of investigation and validation. The LSCCG has employed the services of an attorney and senior council, and has engaged with the Regional Land Claims Commissioner. AMENDMENT TO THE GAZETTED NOTICE Aerial photographs taken in 1937 show settlements within the municipal township boundaries. Based on this evidence, the Commissioner advised the LSCCG that it had been an omission to exclude municipal township titles from the government notice of November 14, 2003 and that she would be amending the notice to include the original area claimed. Amending notices appeared as Notice 516 and Notice 517 in the Government Gazette of 26 March 2004. The Act requires the Regional Land Claims Commissioner to advise each owner in writing immediately after the publication of any notice. To date, affected titleholders within the urban areas have not received such notice. SOUTHBROOM RATEPAYER'S ASSOCIATION (SRA) ACTION As the amendments affect all Southbroom ratepayers as well as business confidence on the Hibiscus Coast, the SRA met with:
It was agreed that:
HIBISCUS COAST MUNICIPALITY (HCM) ACTION The HCM recognised the need for continued business confidence and economic growth in the region, as well as the product of uncertainty. The HCM committed itself to:
HOW DO THE GAZETTED LAND CLAIMS AND THE ACT AFFECT RATEPAYERS? In terms of Section 11 Sub-section 7 of the Act:
Any person affected by the publication of the notice of a claim may make representations to the Regional Land Claims Commissioner for the withdrawal or amendment of that notice. Unless cause to the contrary is shown, the Regional Land Claims Commissioner may withdraw the notice of the claim published should he or she have reason to believe that:
Should the notice of the claim not be withdrawn, where the owner or holder of rights in land is opposed to the claim, or there is any other issue which might usefully be resolved through mediation and negotiation, the Chief Land Claims Commissioner may direct the parties concerned to attempt to settle their dispute through a process of mediation and negotiation. Should the parties to any dispute arising from the claim agree in writing that it is not possible to settle the claim by mediation and negotiation, the Regional Land Claims Commissioner shall refer the matter to the Land Claims Court. The Land Claims Court will:
The Land Claims Court may order:
MOST LIKELY OUTCOME - BUSINESS CONFIDENCE Apparently, the land claim for the entire Richard's Bay area (including ALUSAF) was gazetted 5 years ago. Due to its complexities, the claim has not yet been settled. Yet, for Richards Bay it is "business as usual" and the area is said to be enjoying good economic growth. MOST LIKELY OUTCOME - EQUITABLE REDRESS Legal opinion is that the claims seem “highly fruitless” as it already appears that they would not be able to stand the procedural and substantive tests that the Act requires. Should the claims be validated in whole or in part, equitable redress - a grant of an appropriate right in alternative State-owned land, and/or a payment of compensation by the State - would be the most likely compensation. This opinion is based on the Act requiring the Land Claims Court to have regard to:
Feasibility - No government would pay the price, nor would it displace, the residents of Southbroom to return rural grazing land to tenants. Equity and justice - No court would order the State to pay for the acquisition of Southbroom when the claimants rights are to beneficial occupation of rural grazing land. Major social disruption would result if Southbroom were to be awarded to the claimants. Current use of the land - Southbroom is now a well-developed municipal township that bears no resemblance to rural grazing land. History of acquisition and use of the land - Prior to 1896, missionary Alfred Eyles purchased the 557 acres extending from the Imbezane to the Umkobi River from the Natal Government for 10 shillings an acre. It was farmed to enable his mission to become self-supporting. In 1907 the Swedish Zulu Mission took over when Eyles retired and Eyles provided land for the construction of a new mission and homestead located off Bushy Vales Road. In 1933, two of Eyles' sons formed a partnership and set about planning a township on the land acquired by their father before the turn of the century. Due to Eyles' profession and the fact that he had caused the land to be farmed, the claimant's ancestors may well have enjoyed tenancy for a continuous period of 10 years. However, it is unlikely that their dispossession was as a result of past racially discriminatory laws and practices. The more likely reason for their dispossession or relocation would have been the change of land use from farmland to township land. MOST LIKELY OUTCOME - TIME FRAME A representative of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner indicated that the claims should be settled in little over a year. WEBSITES OF INTEREST http://www.land.pwv.gov.za/restitution/default.htm |
QUICK LINKS ATTRACTIONS
|
