GC Steinberg v South Peninsula Municipality

The appellant owned immovable property in Wynberg that fell within the area affected by an approved but unimplemented road scheme proclaimed in 1969 and approved in 1974. The scheme envisaged that a road would cut across the property if implemented. The appellant purchased the property in 1994 with knowledge of the scheme and took transfer in 1997. She alleged that the existence of the road scheme rendered the property unsaleable and prevented development, and sought an order compelling the municipality to complete the expropriation process or to expropriate the property, relying on the doctrine of constructive or regulatory expropriation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case is a leading authority on the distinction between deprivation and expropriation under section 25 of the Constitution. It rejects the notion that planning measures or unimplemented schemes constitute expropriation, thereby protecting the state’s ability to engage in land-use planning without incurring immediate compensation liability. It is frequently cited in South African property and constitutional law to limit claims based on constructive or regulatory expropriation.