The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure told parliament that it has so far spent R1,661,523.90 on legal representation in the court fight over the Expropriation Act, the minister said. The figure was given by Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson during a parliamentary question period and is recorded in the department’s own accounting.
The Expropriation Act, signed into law in early 2025, gives the government power to acquire private land for public interest projects. Unlike the earlier 1975 Expropriation Act, which required payment of the property’s fair market value, the new law allows compensation to be set on a “just and equitable” basis. In plain terms, the government can consider the current use of the land and any improvements made when deciding how much to pay.
Legal experts have warned that the wording opens the door to “expropriation without compensation”, a scenario where the state could take land and pay nothing at all. Werksmans senior associate Thomas Karberg explained that nil compensation would be possible only in “extremely rare circumstances” and that the concept could face a constitutional challenge.
Several civil-society groups have taken the Act to court. AfriForum, the Institute of Race Relations and the Democratic Alliance have all filed applications in the Western Cape High Court, arguing that the law breaches the constitution. AfriForum chief executive Kallie Kriel said the legal action is needed to protect South Africans from the risk of losing land without payment.
Macpherson said the department’s legal bill covers both junior and senior counsel engaged across three consolidated applications. He also noted that part of the cost relates to a separate case involving the Liberty Fighters Network, in which affidavits submitted by the minister were set aside and the claim dismissed as meritless.
Why the cost matters for businesses
Land remains a critical asset for many small and medium-size enterprises, especially in agriculture, retail and manufacturing. Changes to how compensation is calculated could affect the value of property used as collateral for loans or as a base for expansion. While the department’s spending does not directly impact a single SME, the outcome of the court case could shape the risk profile of land-related investments across the economy.
South Africa has a long history of land reform, and the 2025 Act was introduced as a tool to accelerate that process. Critics argue that uncertainty around compensation may deter investors, while supporters say the flexibility will enable faster delivery of public projects such as schools, clinics and infrastructure.
For taxpayers, the R1.66 million legal bill is a concrete illustration of the cost of defending a contested policy. The minister defended the expense, saying that representation is required because the department is named as a defendant and must have counsel to answer questions and advise throughout the proceedings.
As the case proceeds, businesses and landowners will be watching for any judicial clarification of the “just and equitable” standard. A ruling that narrows the scope of compensation could lower the financial risk of future expropriations, while a decision that upholds the broader discretion may keep the debate alive.
For further details, see the original statement on the BusinessTech article. The department’s mandate can be reviewed on the Government website. Related coverage is available in the Regulatory & Policy section.
Dean Macpherson reiterated that the R1,661,523.90 figure covers fees for both junior and senior counsel tied to the three applications that the Western Cape High Court has merged into a single proceeding, confirming the amount during a parliamentary question session. The consolidation means that each separate challenge, brought by AfriForum, the Institute of Race Relations and the Democratic Alliance, is now heard together, streamlining the court’s docket while keeping the total legal spend transparent for parliamentary scrutiny.
Thomas Karberg highlighted that the Act’s wording also creates a statutory route for expropriation “for public interest”, extending beyond the traditional “public use” rationale and giving the government a constitutional foothold to make land available for reform programmes. This addition has sparked debate because it layers a legislative basis atop the constitutional one, potentially broadening the circumstances under which land can be taken and influencing how courts will interpret “just and equitable” compensation.
When multiple applications are consolidated, the court schedules a unified set of hearings, allowing the parties to present their arguments on the same factual and legal issues. After the consolidated briefing stage, the judges will consider written submissions and oral evidence before delivering a judgment that will address each challenger’s constitutional concerns. The timeline for a decision depends on the court’s docket, but the merged case means any ruling will apply to all three challengers simultaneously, setting a single precedent for future expropriation disputes.
The separate claim involving the Liberty Fighters Network was dismissed as meritless after affidavits submitted by the minister were set aside, a move the minister described as an attempt to delay the main expropriation case. He stressed that, as a cited party in litigation concerning legislation administered by his portfolio, the department must retain counsel throughout to answer questions in court and advise both the minister and the department, ensuring proper representation at every stage of the proceedings.
