What is agricultural land?
2009-02-05 · Legal / Property Policy
Wary Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Stalwo (Pty) Ltd & others is a decision of the Constitutional Court case whose judgment was handed down on 25 July 2008.
The case concerned the question of whether agricultural land, as defined, still exists in South Africa, given the current situation where we now have "wall-to-wall" municipalities.
The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970 ("the Act") stipulates that no subdivision of and no sale of any portion of agricultural land may take place without the written consent of the Minister (of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs). Agricultural land is defined in the Act as any land except land situated in the area of jurisdiction of a municipal, city or town council - provided that land situated in the area of jurisdiction of a transitional council - which immediately prior to the first election of the members of such transitional council was classified as agricultural land, shall remain so classified. This proviso was added to the definition as part of the transitional arrangements under Section 235(8)(a) of Interim Constitution in 1993.
The facts of the case were that Wary Holdings (Pty) Ltd ("W") had concluded a sale agreement with Stalwo (Pty) Ltd ("S") whereby W sold to S four proposed sub-divisions of its farm situated within the jurisdiction of the Nelson Mandela Municipality. As a result of disagreements between the parties W adopted the stance that the agreement was invalid and unenforceable and S applied to the High Court for an order to declare the sale agreement valid.
W argued that the sale was invalid because it was the sale of agricultural land and there was no consent from the Minister. Its argument was upheld but S appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing that the land was no longer agricultural land as defined, and it won. W then appealed further to the Constitutional Court which found in favour of W and reinstated the original decision of the High Court.
The Constitutional Court ruled that land situated in the area of jurisdiction of a transitional council which immediately prior to the first election of the members of such transitional council was classified as agricultural land, remains classified as agricultural land. This is so despite the fact that the land now falls within the jurisdiction of the municipality. W's land had been classified as agricultural land prior to the first election of members of the transitional council of the then Port Elizabeth and accordingly remained classified as such. It therefore required the Minister's consent before it could be sold or sub divided.
Simphiwe Maphumulo, a Director of Garlicke & Bousfield Inc is the author.
For more information contact Simphiwe Maphumulo on 031 570 5314
The case concerned the question of whether agricultural land, as defined, still exists in South Africa, given the current situation where we now have "wall-to-wall" municipalities.
The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970 ("the Act") stipulates that no subdivision of and no sale of any portion of agricultural land may take place without the written consent of the Minister (of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs). Agricultural land is defined in the Act as any land except land situated in the area of jurisdiction of a municipal, city or town council - provided that land situated in the area of jurisdiction of a transitional council - which immediately prior to the first election of the members of such transitional council was classified as agricultural land, shall remain so classified. This proviso was added to the definition as part of the transitional arrangements under Section 235(8)(a) of Interim Constitution in 1993.
The facts of the case were that Wary Holdings (Pty) Ltd ("W") had concluded a sale agreement with Stalwo (Pty) Ltd ("S") whereby W sold to S four proposed sub-divisions of its farm situated within the jurisdiction of the Nelson Mandela Municipality. As a result of disagreements between the parties W adopted the stance that the agreement was invalid and unenforceable and S applied to the High Court for an order to declare the sale agreement valid.
W argued that the sale was invalid because it was the sale of agricultural land and there was no consent from the Minister. Its argument was upheld but S appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing that the land was no longer agricultural land as defined, and it won. W then appealed further to the Constitutional Court which found in favour of W and reinstated the original decision of the High Court.
The Constitutional Court ruled that land situated in the area of jurisdiction of a transitional council which immediately prior to the first election of the members of such transitional council was classified as agricultural land, remains classified as agricultural land. This is so despite the fact that the land now falls within the jurisdiction of the municipality. W's land had been classified as agricultural land prior to the first election of members of the transitional council of the then Port Elizabeth and accordingly remained classified as such. It therefore required the Minister's consent before it could be sold or sub divided.
Simphiwe Maphumulo, a Director of Garlicke & Bousfield Inc is the author.
For more information contact Simphiwe Maphumulo on 031 570 5314
Get commercial property news by email
Free alerts when we publish — pick a focus or get everything, unsubscribe in one click. Subscribe »
More in Legal / Property Policy
- Further increase in repo rate a dampener for property market, says Dr Andrew Golding 2014-07-24
- Protection of Personal Information Act will impact on real estate agencies 2014-04-08
- Co-operation on international valuation standards and international financial reporting standards 2014-03-18
- Less space for smokers 2013-03-20
- New property investment structure welcomed 2013-03-06
- Willing buyer willing seller principle to go 2013-02-21