City of Ekurhuleni reverses expropriation of 34-hectare land in Boksburg

What was set to be South Africa’s first case of land expropriation without compensation in Boksburg has ended in a dramatic backtrack, with the government seemingly getting cold feet.

After a seven-year legal battle between the City of Ekurhuleni and the owners of a 34-hectare piece of land, the municipality has decided to scrap its expropriation of the property.

The metro had initially earmarked the plot in Driefontein for a housing development, but has now withdrawn the expropriation, citing an environmental assessment that deemed the site unsuitable for human settlement.

The contention was the city’s refusal to pay the landowners for the expropriation.

ALSO READ: South Africa’s first test case of land expropriation without compensation unfolding in Ekurhuleni

In 2019, the municipality issued a notice to the landowners, Business Venture Investments 900, informing them of its intention to seize the unused land without offering a payout.

While the owners were not opposed to the expropriation itself, they objected to the city’s offer of nil compensation.

The city argued that the land has not generated any commercial activity in a decade, but the owners insisted on a R30 million payout for the 34-hectare property, reflecting its supposed market value.

COURT MEDIATION

In 2025, the Gauteng High Court ordered both parties to enter mediation ahead of a trial scheduled for next month.

During the court-directed talks, the City of Ekurhuleni continued to refuse any compensation based on the property’s market value for the 34-hectare land.

The municipality has now moved to launch a court application to set aside and review its own decision to expropriate the property.

WHY HAS THE CITY WITHDRAWN THE EXPROPRIATION?

The land, which has been owned by Business Venture Investments since 2005, has remained unused since then.

The city had initially announced plans to seize the property, with plans to develop social housing.

But in what seems like a cold-feet moment, the city said the land is not suitable for human settlement.

A council document lists the key reasons for the reversal of the expropriation:

• Much of the site is wetland with waterlogged, unstable soil.
  • The land is environmentally sensitive, and potential impacts cannot be mitigated.
  • Flood zones and sloped terrain make the area unsuitable for housing.
• THE LEGAL BASIS FOR NIL COMPENSATION

South Africa currently has no active law that explicitly allows for land expropriation without compensation.

The Expropriation Act of 2024, which would allow for zero compensation under specific conditions, has been passed but is not yet in effect.

Dr Tanveer Jeewa, an Advanced Property Law lecturer at Stellenbosch University, said the city seemingly misinterpreted the law by arguing its offer of nil compensation is “just and equitable”.

“Until the Expropriation Act of 2024 commences, nil compensation has no statutory footing,” she said.

Under current law, compensation must meet the Constitution’s “just and equitable” standard - not necessarily market value, but not automatically zero.

The city argues compensation is unjustified because the land is dormant and unused.

WHAT IS THE CITY SAYING?

“Considering the Gauteng Department of Agriculture’s decision to refuse council to develop houses at the property, it would mean conclusively that the land has severe environmental constraints and therefore is unsuitable for any development,” a City of Ekurhuleni council document reads.

“To save the city from unnecessary legal costs associated in protracted litigation, it would be prudent not to continue with the trial and reverse the decision to expropriate the land in question.”

The council document, drafted by the city’s Risk and Legal Services Department, also confirmed that two environmental assessments found that the land cannot be used to build houses.