The Expropriation Act 13 of 2024: What It Actually Says About Process, Compensation and Nil Compensation

Few pieces of legislation in recent memory have generated as much heat, and as little light, as the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024. Signed by the President on 23 January 2025 and published in the Government Gazette the following day, the Act replaces the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975, a statute that predates the Constitution by more than two decades. Public debate has focused almost entirely on a single subsection dealing with nil compensation. In this article we set out, factually and without editorialising, how the new Act works, what protections it gives owners, and what the nil-compensation provisions do and do not say. Importantly, at the time of writing the Act had not yet been brought into operation: section 31 provides that it commences on a date to be proclaimed by the President, and no proclamation had been published. Until then, the 1975 Act remains in force.

Why a New Act Was Needed

Section 25 of the Constitution permits expropriation only in terms of a law of general application, for a public purpose or in the public interest, and subject to compensation which is just and equitable. The 1975 Act, by contrast, was built around market value and the willing-buyer, willing-seller model, and made no provision for the constitutional compensation standard. The 2024 Act is, in essence, Parliament's attempt to align the mechanics of expropriation with the Constitution — both its safeguards and its compensation formula derive directly from section 25.

The Safeguards Before Any Expropriation

The Act does not permit an expropriating authority simply to take property. Section 2(1) states that property may not be expropriated arbitrarily or for a purpose other than a public purpose or in the public interest. Beyond that threshold, the Act imposes a sequence of procedural steps:

1. Negotiation first. Under section 2(2), the power to expropriate may not be exercised unless the authority has first attempted, without success, to reach agreement with the owner or rights holder for the acquisition of the property on reasonable terms.
2. Investigation. Sections 5 and 6 require the authority to investigate and value the property, and to consult the municipality in which land is situated.
3. Notice of intention to expropriate. Section 7 requires a detailed notice to be served on the owner, any mortgagee and known rights holders. The notice must describe the property, explain the purpose of and reason for the intended expropriation, disclose an offer of compensation with an explanation of how it was calculated, and invite objections and submissions within 30 days.
4. Decision and notice of expropriation. Only after considering the objections may the authority serve a notice of expropriation under section 8. Ownership then vests in the authority on the date of expropriation stated in the notice (section 9).

Bondholders must be notified, and the Act regulates how compensation is applied to mortgaged property.

Compensation: Just and Equitable

Section 12(1) requires compensation to be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including the current use of the property, the history of its acquisition and use, its market value, the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in its acquisition and improvement, and the purpose of the expropriation. These factors repeat, almost word for word, section 25(3) of the Constitution. Market value remains relevant in every case — but as one factor among five, not the starting and ending point as under the old Act. Interest accrues on unpaid compensation from the date the authority takes possession.

The Nil-Compensation Provisions

Section 12(3) is the provision at the centre of the public debate, and its precise wording matters. It provides that it may be just and equitable for nil compensation to be paid where land is expropriated in the public interest, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to:

• where the land is not being used and the owner's main purpose is not to develop it or generate income from it, but to benefit from appreciation in its market value;
• where an organ of state holds land it is not using for its core functions, is not reasonably likely to need it, and acquired it for no consideration;
• where the owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so; and
• where the market value of the land is equivalent to, or less than, the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in its acquisition and beneficial capital improvement.

Several points follow from the text itself. The provision applies only to land, not to other property. It applies only to expropriation in the public interest, not to ordinary public-purpose takings such as road building. It is permissive, not mandatory: nil compensation must still be just and equitable on the facts of the particular case, weighing the section 12(1) factors. And a dissatisfied owner is never obliged to accept the authority's determination, because compensation remains subject to judicial oversight.

Disputes, Mediation and the Courts

If the owner and the authority cannot agree on compensation, section 19 allows the dispute to be referred to mediation, and either party may institute proceedings in a competent court — generally within 180 days of the notice of expropriation — for the court to decide or approve the amount, time and manner of payment. The section expressly preserves the right to approach a court on any other matter arising from the Act. The Act also creates a narrow mechanism for urgent cases: section 20 permits only the temporary use of property, for a maximum of twelve months, in defined circumstances such as a declared disaster.

What Property Owners Should Do

The constitutionality of aspects of the Act has been publicly contested and court challenges have been announced, so the final shape of the law may yet be influenced by litigation. In the meantime, prudent owners should respond to any section 7 notice within the 30-day window, insist on the valuation explanation the Act requires, keep bondholders informed, and take advice before accepting any compensation offer — the first offer is a starting point for negotiation, not a final determination. Owners of vacant or unutilised land should document the use of, and their control over, such land, since those facts bear directly on the nil-compensation criteria.

Conclusion

The Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 is neither the confiscation charter its critics describe nor a mere technical tidy-up. It is a procedural statute that replaces pre-constitutional machinery with a process built around negotiation, notice, objection and judicial oversight — while introducing a genuinely new, and still untested, nil-compensation possibility for narrow categories of land. If you have received a notice of intention to expropriate, or want to understand your exposure and options as an owner, our property litigation team can assist — contact us for advice on your specific position.