Magistrate’s courts get nod to hear land claims

MAGISTRATE’S courts have been given the goahead by Parliament and law advisers to hear cases on expropriated land by the state, once the controversial Expropriation Bill has been passed into law.

This was despite a proposal by Deputy Minister of Public Works Jeremy Cronin, during deliberations on the bill in Parliament yesterday, that magistrate’s courts be stripped of these powers.

Cronin was presenting his department’s response to submissions made by various parties and interested groups a few weeks ago on the Expropriation Bill, when he said magistrate’s court did not have the capacity to hear these matters.

These courts were overburdened with many matters, and expropriation cases must be heard only in the high court.

But MPs and legal advisers rejected the proposal and said magistrate’s courts have the capacity to hear cases of expropriation.

In addition, members of the portfolio committee on public works said magistrate’s courts were easily accessible to all communities across the country.

This was unlike the high courts, which sat in certain parts of the country, making it difficult for many people to access them.

The chief state law adviser and Parliament’s legal adviser also said the high courts were expensive for those who were poor but needed access to the courts.

They were backed by MPs on the matter.

In his argument, Cronin said they were proposing that magistrate’s courts should not have jurisdiction to hear cases of dispute in expropriation matters.

This was based on the fact that the magistrate’s courts were overburdened with many cases.

“We were advised by senior counsel, that has been active in these cases, that magistrate’s courts were involved in the (previous expropriation legislation), but it was such a disaster because they did not have the capacity,” Cronin said.

But he pointed out that magistrate’s courts could hear only cases that didn’t exceed a compensation of more of than R300 000. Their jurisdiction would include all forms of disputes in expropriated land or property.

Cronin said it was not up to his department to decide whether they allowed the magistrate’s courts to continue with this function or not, but was up to Parliament.

But the chief state law adviser and legal adviser of Parliament rejected the proposal to exclude the magistrate’s courts.

Cronin also emphasised that this was a law of general application, and departments or other entities could use it to expropriate property or land.

However, the chairman of the committee, Ben Martins, said he believed there was consensus among MPs that magistrate’s courts could hear cases of dispute on the expropriated land or property.

They are more accessible and affordable for the people