Minister of Water Affairs v Mostert and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1966 (4) SA 690 (A)

Minister of Water Affairs v Mostert and Others
1966 (4) SA 690 (A)

1966 (4) SA p690

Citation	1966 (4) SA 690 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Beyers ACJ, van Blerk JA, Rumpff JA, Wesssels JA and Potgieter JA
Heard	May 9, 1966; May 10, 1966; May 11, 1966; May 12, 1966; May 13, 1966; May 16, 1966; May 17, 1966; May 18, 1966
Judgment	September 1, 1966

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Water — Act 54 of 1956 — Scheme of Act — Sec. 59 (3) — B Scope of — Sec. 62 — Applicability of — Sec. 60 (3) — Compensation for improvements — Basis of — 'Improvements' — Meaning of — What improvements embrace — 'Fair value' of improvements — Calculation of — Land expropriated without improvements — Land not irrigated but irrigable — Water at C field's edge — Effect on valuation — Right of allottee of sugar quota under Sugar Industry Agreement — Cannot be the object of expropriation under Act — Mitigation of damages — Principle applicable where Minister of Water Affairs in public interest exercises power of expropriation — Damages — Mitigation of — D Applicability where Minister of Water Affairs in public interest exercises power of expropriation.

Headnote : Kopnota

The scheme of Act 54 of 1956 is, in so far as the control of the supply of water is concerned, to determine, firstly, an area affected or to be affected by any Government water work which has been constructed or is deemed to have been constructed or which is intended to be constructed. Such an area is to be proclaimed in terms of the provisions of section E 59 (1) (a) of the Act. In that area the Minister may expropriate the various rights referred to in section 60 (c) of the Act if such expropriation is considered by him to be necessary for or in connection with any Government water work. The supply of water from such a Government water work is to be controlled in accordance with the provisions of section 63 of the Act. If, however, it appears that the abstraction, utilisation, supply or distribution of the water of a public stream should be controlled in the public interest, the area concerned is by proclamation declared to be a Government water control F area in terms of the provisions of section 59 (1) (b) of the Act. The necessary control is exercised by the Minister in accordance with the provisions of section 62 of the Act. In such area the powers of expropriation referred to in section 60 (1) of the Act cannot be exercised. In enacting section 59 (3) of Act 54 of 1956 the Legislature could not have intended that an area proclaimed in terms of section 98 (1) of Act 8 of 1912, as amended, because it comprises land which is G affected or is to be affected by a Government irrigation work, should automatically, upon the coming into operation of Act 54 of 1956, become a proclaimed area within which the user of the water of a public stream is to be controlled in the public interest, even where there is in fact no need for such control, and where the Governor-General has not addressed his mind to that question so as to form the necessary opinion referred to in section 59 (1) (b) of Act 54 of 1956. In those cases where the Governor-General forms the opinion that the user of water H should be controlled in an area already proclaimed in terms of section 98 (1) of Act 8 of 1912, the simple remedy would be to publish a proclamation in terms of the provisions of section 59 (1) (b) of Act 54 of 1956.

Section 62 of Act 54 of 1956 was intended to apply in an area proclaimed under paragraph (b) of section 59 (1), and section 63 in an area proclaimed under paragraph (a) thereof. Section 62 does not contemplate the construction of Government water works in connection with the control of the use of the water of a public stream.

By enacting section 60 (3) of Act 54 of 1956, the Legislature clearly aimed at ensuring that, where the power of expropriation is exercised, the person affected thereby is to be compensated by a money payment not less, and also no more, than the loss imposed on him in the public interest.

1966 (4) SA p691

The word 'improvements', as used in section 60 (3) (a) of the Act, would include works of a relatively permanent nature which are constructed by the owner of the land with the intention that it should adhere to the land and become part of his immovable property. It would also include plant material which is intended, e.g., to produce a succession of crops over the years. Improvements contemplated in this section are to be A valued separately, the meaning of 'value' depending upon the question whether they are necessary or useful, or merely of a luxurious nature. 'Fair value' of necessary or useful improvements is normally to be determined with reference to the enhancement in the value of the land flowing from the existence of the improvements in question.

In valuing land without improvements it is not permissible to give any weight to the fact that, by reason of existing irrigation works (which B have to be valued separately in terms of section 60 (3) (a) (ii)), water is available at field's edge and being used for irrigation and that the area in question is classified as irrigated, so as to distinguish it from land which is irrigable but which is not being irrigated, either because the necessary irrigation water has not yet been constructed or because the land is for some reason or other in fact not being irrigated even though water is available at field's edge.

The right conferred on an allottee of a sugar quota under the Sugar C Industry Agreement cannot be the object of expropriation in terms of section 60 of Act 54 of 1956.

If the principle of mitigation of damages is applied in the case of a wrongdoer or a person who acts in breach of contract, there does not appear to be any reason why it should not apply in the case where the Minister, acting in the public interest, exercises a power of expropriation which might result in loss unless the party affected by D the expropriation takes reasonable steps to mitigate such loss.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Water Court (THERON, J.). The facts appear from the judgment of WESSELS, J.A.

A. P. Myburgh (with him J. J. Strydom and H. F. Junod), for the E appellant: Die vergoeding moet vir die partye bepaal word ooreenkomstig die bepalings van art. 60 van die Waterwet, 54 van 1956: die eerste respondent kragtens art. 60 (3) (a) en tweede en derde respondente kragtens art. 60 (3) (b) van die genoemde Wet. Sien Minister van Waterwese v Mostert en Andere, 1964 (2) SA 656 te bl. 667F. Die F enigste dispuut tussen die partye is die bedrag van die vergoeding wat toegeken moet word vir elk van die respondente in die meegaande kostebevel. Die billike markwaarde van grond en die billike vergoeding vir regte ontneem, moet gegrond wees op bewese feite en die logiese afleiding daarvan, hoe moeilik dit ookal mag wees. Sien Union Government v Jackson, 1956 (2) SA te bl. 419F. Die Waterhof het geen G regsbevoegdheid om die uitgereikte waterpermitte te hersien nie. Alleen sulke regte kon op 14 September 1962 van die eerste respondent onteien word as wat hy toe besit het. Die omvang van sy waterregte is bepaal deur die permitte en daar is dus geen ander reg onteien waarvoor daar vergoeding betaal moet word nie. Sien Minister van Waterwese v Mostert H en Andere, 1964 (2) SA te bl. 666H tot bl. 667B. Die uitwerking van 'n suikerkwota is dat dit die markwaarde van die grond waarop dit betrekking het, verhoog. Indien die suikerkwota oorgeplaas word van een eiendom na 'n ander, dan beteken dit dat die vorige eiendom tot die mate minder werd word en die ander dienooreenkomstig meer werd word. Sien Secretary for Inland Revenue v Sturrock Sugar Farm, 1965 (1) SA 897 te bl. 904H, 905H, 906A. Die suikerkwota is nie onteien nie en die eerste respondent het die eienaar daarvan gebly. Die kwota het nie verval nie en is ook nie

1966 (4) SA p692

na die Staat oorgeplaas nie en eerste respondent gebruik dit nog steeds. Die verhoging in markwaarde, wat veroorsaak word deur die bestaan van die suikerkwota, moet nie by die bepaling van die vergoeding in A aanmerking geneem word nie. Die verbeterings moet vergoed word op die basis van 'die billike waarde' daarvan. Sien art. 63 (3) (a) (ii) van Wet 54 van 1956. Die Hof, by die bepaling van die billike markwaarde van grond, moet alle faktore wat 'n voornemende koper en verkoper redelikerwys mag beïnvloed, in aanmerking neem. Indien sodanige faktore B nie in aanmerking geneem is nie, of nie op logiese afleidings van bewese feite berus nie, sal 'n Hof op hoër beroep ingryp en dit regstel. Sien Union Government v Jackson, 1956 (2) SA te bl. 419G - H. Vir die algemene beginsels van die bepaling van die markwaarde, word daar na die volgende uitsprake verwys, nl. Union Government v Jackson, 1956 (2) SA te bl. 398, 416 - 425, 428 - 429, 436 - 441; Pietermaritzburg C Corporation v SA Breweries, 1911 AD 501 te bl. 511 - 516; Union Government v Maile, 1943 AD 1 te bl. 6; Krause v S.A.R. & H., 1948 (4) SA te bl. 554 - 559; Siri Raja v Revenue, (1939) 2 All E.R. 317 te bl. 321 - 322, 327. Die Suid-Afrikaanse Naturelle Trust v Kitchener en Andere (uitspraak gelewer deur die HOOFREGTER op 18 Mei D 1964). Die reg ten opsigte van die suikerriet is 'n persoonlike reg om in die opbrengs daarvan te deel en nie 'n reg nie 'ten opsigte van grond', soos beoog deur art. 60 (3) (b) van Wet 54 van 1956, en dus nie vatbaar vir vergoeding is nie. Hierdie submissie word gemaak op die volgende gronde: (i) Die belanghebbende staan in die posisie van 'n onafhanklike kontrakteur en bewerk die lande 'namens en ter voordeel van E die verhuurder' en word vergoeding vir alle dienste namens die verhuurder betaal. (ii) Die belanghebbende word uitdruklik van alle reg ten opsigte van die lande en eienaarskap van die suikerriet ontneem. Hy is ook nie 'n colonius partiarius nie, weens...