Released - 24 December 2020
1. Sixteenth Annual General Meeting (AGM), Tuesday, 8 December 2020.
Because of the Covid-19 restrictions your committee decided that the sixteenth AGM would be held virtually, using Zoom and WhatsApp. After two postponements (the first pre-announced to allow for some legal processes to be completed, the second un-announced but due to a severe power cut that affected a wide area, and which resulted in the failure to achieve a quorum) the meeting was eventually held at 18h30 on 8 December 2020. When an AGM is rescheduled, due to the lack of a quorum at the original meeting, the LCAG constitution (clause 6.6) makes provision for a quorum that comprises of those members who are present.
However, in the event, the attendance in terms of proxies and members using Zoom achieved the normal quorum requirement of 25% of members.
A rather disappointing aspect of the meeting was the inability of members to wholeheartedly participate, to interact with committee and to vote on motions. This means that the minutes of the 2019 AGM could not be approved and the committee propose that they should be put forward, together with the minutes of the 2020 AGM, for adoption at the next ‘physical’ meeting of members.
1.1 Efforts of the claimants to extend the scope of the claim to include Schurveberg 488JP; Elandsdrift 252JR; De Rust 478JP; and part of Hartbeespoort 482JP.
1.2 Steps being taken to obtain a court date for a ‘pre-trial’ meeting;
1.3 The securing of a court date (20 April 2021) to hear the cost application against the State attorney in his personal capacity. In addition to claiming against the State Attorney for not doing what he had been instructed to do by the Judge, we shall be claiming against him for not volunteering to pay our costs as he is required to do. In other words, the State Attorney has forced LCAG to commence litigation to recover the money that he should have offered to pay in the first place. It is believed that the cost order will be worth around R180k – which will be a welcome addition to our funds.
1.4 The current financial situation. (Members are reminded that annual financial statements are not published on the web site because they contain sensitive information. Any member wanting a copy of the annual financial statements may contact a committee member);
1.5 The observation that the courts are growing tired of the pathetic performance of the claimants and their legal representatives, as evidenced in the judgement of Case LCC 121/2017. (The Luhlwini Mchunu case, heard on 25-29 November 2019 & 17-21 February 2020.)
A more detailed report can be found in the May 2020 Newsflash and a full copy of the judgement, which makes for enlightening reading, can be found at:- http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCC/2020/2.pdf
Many thanks to all those members who submitted ‘proxies’ and to those who attended the virtual meeting.
2. Expropriation without compensation (EWC).
The latest version of the expropriation bill is open for public comment – and will remain so until 10 February 2021. The easiest way to ‘have-your-say’ is to click on the following link:
In addition to accepting your comments on the proposed bill, the “Dear South Africa” web site also:-
This draft bill details the circumstances, as follows, when land may be expropriated without compensation:-
2.1 Where the land is not being used and the owner’s main purpose is not to develop the land or use it to generate income, but to benefit from an appreciation of its market value;
2.2 Where an organ of state holds land that it is not using for its core functions and is not reasonably likely to require the land for its future activities in that regard, and the organ of state acquired the land for no consideration;
2.3 Where an owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it – notwithstanding registration of ownership in terms of the Deeds Registries Act;
2.4 Where the market value of the land is equivalent to, or less than, the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the land; and
2.5 When the nature or condition of the property poses a health, safety or physical risk to persons or other property.
The bill also details the circumstances when it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be paid. However it does not appear to be prescriptive but instead provides that the amount of compensation will be determined by the courts giving consideration to the following factors:-
A legal insight into the new draft can be found at:-
Other reports on the bill can be found at:-
At time of writing (21 December 2020) less than 20 thousand comments had been received. In view of the small amount of effort it actually takes to have a say on something so important, this number is dismal.
3. Questions arising from the AGM together with answers thereto.
Kind regards / Vriendelike Groete
Surely, the proposed extension of the scope of the claim is just yet another delaying tactic?
A comment: Your suggestion that this might be our financial salvation pre-supposes that the owners of sub-units added in to the claimed land would join BLCAG and make a financial contribution for doing so. Without intending to be in any way critical of the Committee, the record of BLCAG and its lawyers in defending the claim over 16 years and bringing it to a conclusion, has not been staggeringly successful so I think that this should be taken into account when forecasting the likely acceptance of new membership from owners of sub-units brought into the claim. In my view it is going to be a difficult sell.
One question: The various cost awards achieved so far - are these in fact credit notes rather than cash payments? In what circumstances will they become payable? Do they attract interest until paid?
The above matters are updates to the recent previous newsflashes and, for clarity, should be read in conjunction with them.
The opinions expressed in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the Committee or of the appointed legal team.