Olifantsvlei Township Ltd v Group Areas Development Board

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: De Vos J
• Judgment Date: 17 June 1964
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 05 May 1964

A De Vos, J.:

In this matter the defendant has excepted to plaintiff's declaration read with the further particulars thereto on the ground that it is bad in law, alternatively discloses no cause of action. I shall continue to refer to the excipient and respondent as defendant and plaintiff respectively.

B From the declaration it appears that plaintiff is the registered owner of 250 morgen of land, sub-divided into 2,798 plots, on portion of the farm Olifantsvlei in the district of Johannesburg. In respect of this property the following is set out in the declaration:

'4.

On or about the 18th of April, 1957 the said property was declared an area for the ownership of an occupation by members of the White group in terms of sec. 3 of the Group Areas Act, 41 of 1950.

5.

C During December, 1961 the defendant caused to be served upon the plaintiff a notice dated 5th December, 1961, in terms of sec. 25 of the Group Areas Development Act, 69 of 1955, as amended, informing the plaintiff that the defendant had expropriated the said property with effect from date of service of the said notice in terms of sec. 24 of the said Act as amended.

6. (a)

The ostensible purpose of the expropriation by the defendant of the plaintiff's aforesaid property, as stated in the D above-mentioned notice dated 5th December, 1961, was that the said property was required by the defendant in order to achieve the objects for which the defendant was established.

6. (b)

The plaintiff alleges, however, that the exercise by the defendant of the powers given it under sec. 24 of the said Act, 69 of 1955, as amended, was not for the bona fide purpose of attaining any of its objects but for an improper and ulterior purpose.

7.

E By virtue of the service on it of the aforesaid notice the plaintiff has been prejudiced and is suffering prejudice.

8.

In the premises the plaintiff is entitled to an order setting aside the aforesaid notice of the defendant dated the 5th December, 1961.'

Plaintiff then claims the setting aside of the notice of expropriation.

F In reply to a request for further particulars to elucidate the improper and ulterior purpose for which it is alleged the property was expropriated, plaintiff supplies the following particulars:

'ad para. 6(b)

(a)

In terms of Proc. 108 published in Government Gazette 5854 dated 18th April, 1957, the area in which the said property is situated was declared an area for White ownership and occupation (hereinafter referred to as a 'White' area) notwithstanding the fact that at the G enquiry which preceded the said Proclamation the evidence led clearly demonstrated that the said area was not suitable as a White area.

(b)

At the time when the notice of expropriation was served upon the plaintiff it was known to the defendant that the said area was not to continue as a White area but that it was intended to convert the said area from a White area to an area for Coloured ownership and occupation (hereinafter referred to as a 'Coloured' area).

(c)

As it was not intended to retain the White character of the said H area but to alter the character of the said area to a Coloured area, the defendant could not honestly have entertained the belief that the property expropriated could be required for any White purpose, and did not in fact entertain the said belief.

(d)

With full knowledge that the area in which the said property was situate was not to retain its White character but was to be converted to a Coloured area, the defendant nevertheless served the said notice of expropriation on the plaintiff with the object that any question of compensation to which the plaintiff might be entitled should be assessed on the basis of the said property being situate in a White area and not on the basis of it being situate in a Coloured area, the value of the said

De Vos J

property if it were situate in a White area being considerably less than the market value if it were situated in a Coloured area.

(e)

The said area was thereafter in terms of Proc. 15 published in Government Gazette 419 dated the 25th February, 1963, declared a Coloured area.'

In the course of argument it became clear that the particulars in A sub-paras. (b), (c) and (d) above contain the crux of the dispute between the parties. Sub-para. (a) deals with the activities of the Group Areas Board, a body distinct from the Group Areas Development Board, the defendant in this matter. Counsel for defendant has submitted that the allegations in sub-para. (a) are therefore irrelevant. Counsel B for plaintiff has not disputed this contention and I deal with the...