Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform & Rural Development and Others

Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and Witfontein X16 Boerdery CC owned the Remainder of Portion 5 of Farm Witfontein X16, land situated within the Ekurhuleni Urban Edge earmarked for future development. The appellants applied in April 2019 for the Minister’s consent under the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970 (SALA) to subdivide the property to establish a mixed-use township. The Delegate of the Minister refused the application on the basis that the land constituted high-potential agricultural land intended to be preserved for food security. An internal appeal to the Minister was dismissed in October 2020 for similar reasons. The appellants then approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court seeking a declarator that the land was not ‘agricultural land’ as defined in s 1(a) of SALA, alternatively a review of the refusal decision. The High Court dismissed both claims. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded in part. The declaratory relief was dismissed, but the Minister’s decision of 1 October 2020 refusing consent to subdivide the property was reviewed and set aside. The subdivision application was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration. The Minister was ordered to pay 50% of the appellants’ costs in the appeal, and the High Court order was replaced accordingly.

The case is significant for clarifying the interpretation of the definition of ‘agricultural land’ in s 1(a) of SALA, particularly the conjunctive requirement relating to health boards and local area committees. It confirms a restrictive approach to statutory exclusions from SALA and reinforces the Act’s purpose of protecting agricultural land. At the same time, it affirms that ministerial decisions under SALA remain subject to rationality review and must properly consider relevant planning frameworks and competing policy considerations.