The Baphiring Community v Matthys Johannes Uys and Others

The Baphiring Community was dispossessed of the farm Rosmincol, which it previously owned, and lodged a claim for restitution under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The current owners of Rosmincol opposed restoration of the land, arguing that physical restoration was not feasible. The Land Claims Court previously found that restoration of the farm itself was not feasible, although restoration of grave sites was feasible, and ordered that restitution should take the form of equitable redress, with its nature and extent to be determined later. The Baphiring Community, together with the Regional Land Claims Commissioner and the Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform, applied for leave to appeal against that judgment. The landowners opposed the application.

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted to the Baphiring Community, the Regional Land Claims Commissioner, and the Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform. The costs of the application for leave to appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal. Paragraph 5 of the earlier order was amended so that the costs relating to the feasibility of restoration were reserved.

The decision is significant because it highlights the complex balancing exercise required in restitution cases between restoration and equitable redress, particularly where feasibility, food production, state resources, and prior compensation are at issue. It underscores the importance of appellate scrutiny in restitution matters and clarifies that concessions by counsel may be scrutinised where mandate is disputed.