Courts Rule to Protect Property Rights in Other Countries

Farmer Wins Landmark Case

An article published on the IOL website discusses the results of what some are calling a landmark case for South African farmers and other citizens with business interests in crisis torn Zimbabwe. On Tuesday, the Pretoria High Court ruled in favour of a Bothaville farmer who lost a number of farms and businesses in Zimbabwe due to the ongoing political upheaval.

The Judge, Bill Prinsloo, ruled that Crawford von Abo had the right to diplomatic protection of his assets in Zimbabwe from the South African government, specifically regarding the violation of his rights by the Zimbabwean government. Prinsloo also ruled that the government had 60 days to remedy the situation and report back to the court regarding the steps taken to restore his rights in Zimbabwe.

Von Abo has been struggling for more than six years to get the South African government to act against the Zimbabwean government’s confiscation of land owned by South African citizens. Up until now, his pleas have fallen on deaf ears and von Abo’s counsel told the court that his efforts to obtain help from the government were like “the Yellow Brick Road – the road to nowhere”.

According to von Abo, in 1997 the Zimbabwean government violated his rights by destroying his property interests in a number of farms in the country, which occurred as part of its national policy to expropriate white-owned farms. To this end, he was not paid compensation for his loss.

Judge Prinsloo said he regretted how difficult it had been to resist the conclusion that “the respondents (government) were simply stringing the application along and never had any serious intention to afford him proper protection”.

Prinsloo went on to say, “Their feeble efforts, if any, amounted to little more than quiet acquiescence in the conduct of their Zimbabwean counterparts and their ‘war-veteran’ thugs”. According to the judge, von Abo had demonstrated that his rightful property in Zimbabwe was unlawfully expropriated under international law and that he had not been compensated for it.

Von Abo’s attempts to protect his interests by suing the Zimbabwean government within the country had proved futile. Prinsloo said that given the state of the country’s legal system and the government’s disregard for the orders of its own courts, particularly in light of expropriation, no more remedies were available to him.

Prinsloo added that the South African government had dealt with the von Abo matter in bad faith and irrationally. “For six years or more, in the face of a stream of urgent requests – they (government) did absolutely nothing to bring about relief to the applicant and hundreds of other white commercial farmers in the same position. Their ‘assistance’ was limited to empty promises”.

He went on to say, “They (government) exhibited neither the will nor the ability to do anything constructive to bring their northern neighbour to book. They paid no regard, of any consequence, to the plight of valuable citizens such as the applicant with a 50-year track record in Zimbabwe and other hard-working white commercial farmers making a substantial contribution to the GDP in Zimbabwe and providing thousands of people with work in that country”.

The judge thus concluded that von Abo qualified for diplomatic protection from the South African government, which “may involve effective diplomatic pressure on the Zimbabwean government to restore the properties to the applicant and his companies and to pay compensation for losses and damages”.

As part of the ruling, Prinsloo indefinitely postponed von Abo’s claim for damages against the government regarding the farms and business interests he had lost in Zimbabwe. Von Abo indicated during the trial that the conservative total in damages pertaining to his six farms, including the implements and other assets lost, amounted to around R60 million.

According to Ernst Penzhorn, von Abo’s lawyer, in response to the verdict, his client indicated that he “is grateful that he could have turned to a court in his own country to protect his rights. This is comforting if one looks at how he was treated with no sympathy by members of the executive”.

Penzhorn said that the next step would be to approach the Constitutional Court to confirm the judgment. He said he believed that the decision would open the door for many South African citizens who lost business interests in neighbouring Zimbabwe. Regarding the claim for damages, he said that they would first see what the government’s response is before going any further.

The information in this article is courtesy of Zelda Venter (“Landmark win for SA farmer”, Pretoria News, 30 July 2008).

Visit www.sahometraders.co.za if you would like to buy or sell property in South Africa.