- Constitutional Court concludes SARDA’s 15-year legal dispute over Constantia land, limiting its interest to compensation under the land restitution law.
- Justice Kollapen affirms the Sadien family’s right to reclaim land lost to apartheid, saying, “They have waited long enough.”
- The Court warns that protracted litigation delays justice for restitution claimants and undermines the Land Claims Act.
The Constitutional Court has brought to a close the protracted legal battle between the South African Riding for the Disabled Association (SARDA) and the Sadien family over Constantia land.
In a unanimous judgment, Justice Jody Kollapen ruled SARDA had no legal basis to continue contesting the restitution award that returned the property to the Sadien family.
“The Sadien brothers lost their land in 1963. More than 60 years later, and 13 years after the original restitution award, the family still has not been able to regain what is rightfully theirs,” Justice Kollapen wrote. “It is deeply concerning that a process meant to restore dignity has faced so many delays.”
SARDA, which has offered equine therapy to children with disabilities on the property since 1980, argued that its long-term occupation and improvements gave it a vested interest. The court disagreed, stressing that SARDA’s stake was limited to compensation for improvements, not ownership or transfer rights.
“Nothing more, and nothing less,” Justice Kollapen stated. “SARDA’s right was only to compensation for improvements made during lawful occupation.”
The court’s warning on endless litigation
The court criticised SARDA’s repeated attempts to revisit the matter, noting that the organisation had been informed in 2017 that its rights were limited to compensation. “SARDA’s ongoing attempts to challenge the 2013 order, settled for over eight years, cannot be ignored given the injustice faced by the Sadien family and the broader significance of restitution,” the ruling emphasized.
Justice Kollapen warned that prolonged litigation undermines the restorative intent of the land restitution process. “Litigation must, at some point, come to an end,” he said, referencing the court’s earlier remarks in Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture.
While describing SARDA’s persistence as “puzzling and somewhat troubling,” the court recognised SARDA’s valuable community role. In light of this, SARDA was ordered to pay the respondents’ legal costs, but not for two counsel, as a nod to its non-profit status.
Restitution and redress at the heart of the judgment
Justice Kollapen articulated the restoration programme’s broader goal: “Restitution is how the state and society begin to address and redress the injustices of the past, which persist even after more than 30 years of democracy.”
He further stressed that “the constitutional promise of restitution remains unfulfilled for many claimants,” adding, “the Sadien family has waited long enough.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
