The Western Cape High Court is expected to hear a major challenge to South Africa’s Expropriation Act on Monday.

The Democratic Alliance, AfriForum and the Institute of Race Relations are among the groups seeking to have parts of the law declared unconstitutional.

President Cyril Ramaphosa, the public works minister, Parliament and the presiding officers of the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces are listed as respondents.

The Act replaced legislation dating back to 1975 and sets out how the state may expropriate property for a public purpose or in the public interest.

Applicants challenge law’s validity

The DA argues that the Act is unconstitutional on both procedural and substantive grounds.

It claims five provinces supported the legislation in the National Council of Provinces without securing provincial mandates in the required manner.

The party also argues that parts of the law are vague and contradictory.

AfriForum has focused its opposition on provisions allowing the state to offer nil compensation in certain circumstances.

Its chief executive, Kallie Kriel, said the organisation wants the court to declare the disputed provisions unconstitutional.

Government defends land reform law

Section 12(3) allows nil compensation to be considered in specific cases involving land.

This does not mean every expropriation will take place without payment. The law generally requires compensation to be just and equitable and provides for negotiations before property is taken.

Government has maintained that the Act does not permit arbitrary confiscation and is intended to support land reform and public infrastructure development.

No ruling has yet been made on the applicants’ constitutional claims.

Law fuels tensions with US

The legislation has become a central issue in strained relations between South Africa and the United States.

US President Donald Trump previously accused South Africa of confiscating property and targeting Afrikaner farmers.

The South African government rejected those claims, saying no land had been confiscated under the Act.

Trump later signed an executive order cutting assistance to South Africa, citing the land law alongside disagreements over Pretoria’s foreign policy.

The High Court case could now determine whether the Act remains in force, is amended or is struck down entirely.