Dhlomo-Dhlomo Community v Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and Others

The Dhlomo-Dhlomo Community lodged a land restitution claim under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 in respect of several portions of the farm Avontuur 725 JT in Mpumalanga. The claim was investigated by the Regional Land Claims Commissioner and found to be valid. Prior to publication of the claim in 2006, Aloe Falla Golf Estate (Pty) Ltd had acquired and consolidated the land and had undertaken extensive steps to develop it into a golf estate and leisure development, including rezoning, environmental approvals, and partial sales to investors. After publication of the claim, development was halted. Negotiations followed between the claimants, the Commission, and the landowner, resulting in a proposed joint venture and various valuation exercises. Despite offers being made and accepted, the Minister declined to approve the purchase. The Commission ultimately recommended equitable redress (monetary compensation) instead of restoration, citing price, feasibility, state resources, and alleged overcompensation. The claimants and the landowner insisted on physical restoration.

The Court ordered that the Dhlomo-Dhlomo Community is entitled to restoration of portions 5, 7, 8, 28, 30, 31, 49 and the remaining extent of the farm Avontuur 725 JT; directed the state to acquire the property; ordered transfer to the Ndwandwa Community Trust; required the Commission to appoint a legal adviser to protect the community’s interests in finalising a joint venture with the landowner; and ordered the first, second and third defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

The case affirms that physical restoration remains the primary remedy under South African land restitution law and that state budgetary constraints or policy preferences cannot, without more, defeat a valid and feasible claim for restoration. It reinforces an equity-based approach under section 33 of the Restitution Act and provides guidance on rejecting overcompensation arguments where claimants received no compensation at dispossession.