Thamsanqa Davis Bisset v Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others

The applicant, a descendant of the Bisset family, sought to review and set aside a settlement agreement concluded in April 2008 under section 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The agreement purported to settle a land restitution claim relating to Erf 477, Bethelsdorp (formerly Veeplaas), from which the family had been dispossessed in 1972 due to racially discriminatory laws. The applicant alleged that the agreement, which awarded compensation of R78 702.56, was not explained to him, that the valuation process was flawed and undertaken by an unauthorised entity, that relevant factors such as the history of dispossession and hardship were ignored, and that payment was never made. He only instituted review proceedings in 2021, approximately 13 years later, necessitating an application for condonation under PAJA.

Condonation was granted for both the respondents’ procedural irregularities and the applicant’s late review. The settlement agreement was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Regional Land Claims Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with the Restitution of Land Rights Act.

The case underscores the Land Claims Court’s broad procedural powers and its willingness to condone extreme delays in land restitution matters where the interests of justice, legality, and constitutional imperatives of land reform are at stake. It affirms that settlement agreements under section 42D are subject to PAJA review and that decision-makers must consider the full historical and human impact of dispossession.