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

The Bisset family was dispossessed of land in Gqeberha in 1972 due to racially discriminatory laws. A restitution claim was lodged under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. In April 2008, Mr Thamsanqa Davis Bisset signed a document titled a settlement agreement in terms of s 42D of the Act, proposing compensation for the dispossession. The document was never countersigned by the Minister or authorised departmental representatives, no compensation was paid, and Mr Bisset shortly thereafter indicated that he no longer accepted the settlement. Further negotiations occurred years later without reference to a binding settlement. In 2021, Mr Bisset brought review proceedings seeking to declare the settlement agreement invalid and set aside, alleging failure to consider non-financial factors and unlawfulness in the determination of compensation. The Land Claims Court condoned the delay and set aside the purported settlement. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Land Claims Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application. No costs order was sought or made.

The case clarifies that a settlement under s 42D of the Restitution of Land Rights Act requires concurrence by the Minister or authorised representatives to be binding. It also reinforces that courts may not exercise review powers under PAJA or public law in the absence of a concluded agreement or administrative action, thereby delineating the limits of judicial review in land restitution negotiations.