Driefontein Landowners Challenge Zero Compensation Under Expropriation Act

Municipality Offers Zero Compensation for 34-Hectare Driefontein Land, Owners Demand R30 Million

South Africa is facing a legal and constitutional reckoning over the first real test of expropriation without compensation (EWC). The Driefontein case in Ekurhuleni, Boksburg, is more than a dispute over 34 hectares of land—it is a landmark confrontation between private property rights and state overreach.

The municipality has offered zero compensation, while the landowners, Business Venture Investments 900, are demanding R30 million, a valuation supported by recent market estimates. Yet, mainstream coverage, such as News24’s paywalled article titled “Driefontein: The Vacant Boksburg Plot Stoking Fresh Fears About Land Expropriation Without Compensation”, misleads readers by describing the land as “vacant” and framing the story as speculative fear-mongering. This headline is deceptively dismissive, downplaying the severity of zero-compensation expropriation and the constitutional stakes at play.

Eyewitness News, 2OceansVibe, and independent reporting provide the factual picture: the land was purchased in 2005 for R1 million in a transaction not reflective of market value, has been dormant for over 30 years, and is now subject to municipal expropriation under Section 9(3) of the Housing Act, ostensibly for public housing development. The owners do not challenge the expropriation itself, but dispute the nil compensation, which is not supported under current law.

Critically, Dr Tanveer Jeewa of Stellenbosch University has affirmed that, until the Expropriation Act of 2024 comes into effect, there is no legal basis for zero compensation. Compensation under current law must meet the Constitution’s “just and equitable” standard. By offering nothing, the municipality risks violating constitutional safeguards, setting a dangerous precedent for private property nationwide.

The stakes escalate when considering President Cyril Ramaphosa’s admissions under oath. In a court affidavit responding to AfriForum’s constitutional challenge, Ramaphosa confirmed that Sections 19(2), (3), and (4) of the Expropriation Act are unconstitutional, as they allow expropriation before landowners can contest in court. His acknowledgement exposes the deliberate misrepresentation of legal authority, contradicting ANC narratives and undermining confidence in property protections.

AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel notes that Ramaphosa’s actions are directly linked to international repercussions, including punitive measures from the United States, and economic consequences such as job losses and investment insecurity. The Driefontein case, therefore, is not just a local dispute; it is a litmus test for constitutional governance and accountability at the highest levels of the South African state.

News24’s portrayal of this case as a speculative or “misinformation” story is emblematic of broader media failures. Instead of reporting the constitutional stakes and the municipality’s unprecedented zero-compensation stance, the outlet obscures critical details behind a paywall and frames the story in a misleading, dismissive manner. In contrast, Joe Emilio’s coverage correctly highlights the legal and societal implications of this landmark test case.

As Driefontein heads to mediation on 31 October 2025 and, potentially, trial in the Gauteng High Court in February, South Africans must critically examine both government overreach and the media’s selective framing of property rights issues. This case is a pivotal moment: the outcome will either affirm constitutional protections or normalize state-sanctioned expropriation without compensation, threatening homes, farms, and businesses across the nation.

The question remains: will South Africa’s constitutional courts uphold property rights, or will the state redefine ownership at will?