Florence v The Government of the Republic of South Africa

The appellant’s late husband, Mr Lionel Florence, and his brothers purchased the property Sunny Croft in 1957 under an instalment sale agreement. Due to racially discriminatory legislation, the property was never transferred to them. In 1970, following threats under the Group Areas Amendment Act 77 of 1957, they were compelled to cancel the agreement, sell the property back to the original owner, and vacate it. The refund they received was not market-related and did not amount to just and equitable compensation. A restitution claim was lodged in 1995 under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. Because the property was later developed and privately owned, restoration was abandoned, save for symbolic restoration in the form of a memorial plaque. The Land Claims Court (LCC) awarded compensation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust historical loss but declined to order the state to pay for the memorial plaque. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The appeal against the LCC’s use of the CPI was dismissed. The appeal against the refusal to order payment for the memorial plaque was upheld. The state was ordered to pay the costs of erecting the plaque, limited to R50 000. The costs order of the LCC was amended so that the respondent must pay the appellant’s costs insofar as they were not met by the Land Claims Commission.

This case reaffirms that the CPI is an appropriate and judicially accepted method for adjusting historical losses in restitution claims and confirms the wide remedial discretion of the Land Claims Court under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. Importantly, it recognises symbolic restitution, such as memorial plaques, as a legitimate form of solatium and equitable redress, reinforcing the restorative and dignity-based objectives of land restitution in South African law.