WERE ARE MADE TO THINK WE ARE POOR THROUGH IMPLEMENTING THESE DRACONIAN LAWS:- THE LAND SETTLEMENT ACT NO.12 OF 1912, LAND BANK ACT NO. 18 of 1912, THE NATIVE LAND ACT 27 OF 1913, BLACK ADMINISTRATION ACT 38 OF 1927, AND THE RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS ACT 22 OF 1994 ARE COMPROMISED IN SOUTH AFRICA.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

RE: GCINGCA FAMILY LAND CLAIM: - DISPUTE LOT 53 FARM 31, REM, MFULA, SUNART, NTUNJA/GATBERG

 

After we wrote a complaint letter to the Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Hon. G. Nkwinti on the 22 August 2011. 

 

Here are the prescribed contents and deliverables of his first response letter signed by Mr. S Singh the Acting Regional Land Claim Commissioner – of Eastern Cape, which was received on 24 August 2011 and

 

1.      They promised to research and check what established the circumstances that led to the dispossession of the Land.  

 

2.      Verification is yet to be determined which would lead to the claim being settled.

 

3.      The services of an independent Valuer will be sought to determine the extent of the claimed land. 

 

The same office promised to keep us informed of the developments of the claim. 

(Which was never honoured) 

 

In the process, Mr. Ntwasa also resigned and we were left unattended and frustrated. 

 

We were then seconded to Ms. Z. Pona. In her second letter dated drafted 19 March 2012 and later signed on 27 March 2014 by the Deputy Director-operations. 

 

The letter serves as an update; 

 

1.      They informed that the claim is going to be forwarded to the Human Science & Resource Council (HSRC) for further research in the next financial year beginning on 1 April 2014. The HSRC was contracted by the Department in order to assist with outstanding research nationally (We don’t know what comes to that report)

 

We continue seeking justice and accelerate more pressure on leaders. More especially the offices of the Rural Development & Land Reform Minister, Deputy and Presidential Hotline during the term of President Zuma, and now President Ramaphosa between then and now.  For the first, we received a report;

 

In the RESEARCH REPORT (RULE 5)

YEAR OF PRODUCTION: 2020

NAME OF THE CLAIM: GCINGCA FAMILY LAND 

FILE REFERENCE: KRO: 6/2/2/D/83/0/0/46

YEAR OF SUBMISSION: 1998

 

Due to this engagement, we manage to get the attention of the office. 

 

We manage to set up a follow-up all-family site meeting at the Farm SunArt together with Mr. Z Memela, Ms. Pona, and Mr. Gogo that was held on 17 October 2021.

 

Between then and now, we had an unproductive situation in which we end up escalating the matter to the office of the CHIEF LAND COMMISSION, Ms. Nomfundo Ntloko-Gobodo.  Based on her involvement as the accounting officer, and enforcing the recommendation of the report.

 

We start to witness the progress, and recent back-to-back letters from 12 April 2022, 09 September 2022, and 12 October 2022 all three letters were signed by Mr. Z Memela the Acting Chief Director, show commitment. 

 

The 12 April 2022 correspondence inveterate that the report has been approved by the Reginal Land Claims Commissioner. 

 

1.      Confirming that we received the copy of the research.

 

2.      It was agreed that we should provide their office with a detailed report (representations) indicating properties that should be included in the research report as well as documentary proof to substantiate our submission.

 

3.      The office of the Regional Land Commissioner hereby requests that we provide the presentation within 14 days (Which we did)

 

4.        After they received the representation, a memorandum will be submitted. (As things stand nothing was submitted)

 

 09 October 2022 letter reads as follows;      

1.      The office of the Regional Land Claims Commission claims that they have looked at our submission and they established that there are no other additional properties that can be linked to the claimant family. (Which is not true)

 

2.      You further revealed that the claim is valid only in respect of Portion 1 – 5 of Farm SunArt, and you further claim it was communicated with the family, and you’re convinced of these findings. (Please find the attached consent letter below)

 

3.      Your investigation further revealed that the Remainder of Farm SunArt, known as Mfula was transferred from Mina Gcingca to Lambertus Hetcher through the implementation of the court order and the Commission has no jurisdiction over the liquidation and reversal of the court order. There is no racially discriminatory law practice, as prescribed by section 2 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 that can be traced to this transaction. (False statement, because the court decision during subdivision we made on the same day and same court. We further explain below)

 

4.      You further explained that there is no supporting documentation confirming ownership of the Farm Diarmid that we claimed as the family.

 

12 October 2022, the letter signed by Mr. Memela responding to our letter dated 10 October 2022.

 

Their office respond as follows;

 

1.      The office of the Regional Land Claims Commission has looked at the documents submitted by the Gcingca Family and agrees with the content, as outlined in A2 paragraphs 1 to 4.

 

2.      Kindly note that the office operates within the mandate of the Restitution of Rights Act. No.22 of 1994 as amended which makes us not to be to agree with the contents of paragraphs A1 & B.  

 

3.      It is appreciated that you have indicated the family representatives for each portion of the farm and this will make it easy for the office to communicate with the relevant families for further processing of the claim.  

 

4.      Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the information provided is appreciated however there are departmental documents that need to be completed for each stage as per the relevant policies. 

 

Please note;

 In all the Commission response letters you haven’t mentioned LOT 53 FARM 31, ORIGINAL SunArt which was 1409 Megan’s, 590 square roots before Lease and subdivisions. Furthermore, in your report, you choose to be silent on the PRIMARY ISSUE i.e. 1913 to 1921 window period. It is a very interesting period when Mr. SJ Vorster was leasing GCINGCA LAND from the government. 

 

It is the same period also in the financial sector, where three GCINGCA WILLS were never finally distributed to family members. The GCINGCA money benefited the same SYSTEM. It shows how spheres of government collaborated benefiting immensely from the GCINGCA ASSETS & FINANCES. 

 

The abovementioned, Research Report document only captures and addresses the SECONDARY ISSUE of the 1913 LAND ACT i.e. 1932 Subdivisions.

 

Your report fails to allocate the late CARTWRIGHT GCINGCA from the list of beneficiaries. Even in your correspondence, the subdivision failed to allocate his portion of LAND, which is Rem/Remainder which 119 0585 hectors and the other half was known as Mfula 117 3566 which was allocated to Mina Gcingca whose whereabouts were still unknown.

 

Let me simply say “The Maxima of Gun” and the fraudulent Justice System really stripped off Gcingca’s and related families’ their rights and dignity.  Justifiable through race, colour, and creed. It is insane.   

 

The importance of outlining the contents of paragraphs A1 and B is to avoid other discrepancies and to establish trust through a clear working plan.

 

In all the Commissioner Response letters, the OPTIONS ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION and GCINGCA FAMILY RESOLUTION that was taken on 17 October 2021 is not mentioned. Are they still valid or not?  

 

We seek further clarity on these issues; 

 

As per Act No. 22 of 1994, Amended. The Regional Land Claims Commissioner has the duty to investigate all the lodge land claims. 

 

On the other hand, the Public Service Commission derives its mandate from sections 195 and 196 of the Constitution, 1996.

The PSC is tasked and empowered to, amongst others, investigate, monitor, and evaluate the organisation and administration of the Public Service.

And, 

The Human Science Research Council was established in 1968 as South Africa’s statutory research agency and has grown to become the largest dedicated research institute in the social sciences and humanities on the African continent, doing cutting-edge public research in areas that are crucial to development.

The RESEARCH REPORT failed to provide the entire necessary INFORMATION as per Folio Report and Mortgage Bond. The original seizing of “SUNART” is 1409 Megan’s, 590 Square Roots. The report fails to capture subdivisions and the Judiciary’s role and responsibility.

 

Referring to the APPROVED RESEARCH and perusing the Folio Report and Mortgage Bond closely, all the Property Descriptions of the past & current Owners, and Title Deeds Numbers have been adjusted & manipulated with discrepancies and distortion of information. We have been deceived now we are entitled to 1’095 7189 Hectares instead of 1409 Megan’s, 590 Square Roots.

 

ORIGINAL LAND TO 1913
SIZE
ORIGINAL OWNERS
YEAR’S PURCHASED
LOT 53 OF FARM 31
1409 Megan’s 509 Square Roots Elliot – Marclear
GCINGCA FAMILY  

Chief Jantjie Snr. Gcingca  Died 1902......(Month)....(Date) its a work in-progress.

1891/3 SUBDIVISIONS/OTHER RELATED LAND
 
 
1913, 1919 & 1921 LIQUIDATION & DISTIBUTION ACCOUNT
SUNART
 
Jantjie Jnr. Gcingca (Died 08 October 1919)

 

1st wife Mary Ann Gcingca (Died 17 May 1913)
 

2nd wife Mina Gcingca After the death of first wife gave birth to Cartwright in 1918.
 

In 1919 Jantjie Jnr. Gcingca passed on.

Followed by, Cartwright age 3 yrs.’ passed on 1921

1913 The first, Liquidation and Distribution Account WILL of Mary Ann Gcingca valued at £2246 pounds, British Sterling that never reach the family.

Her third daughter, Marry Ann Jane Leslie Makohliso born Gcingca wrote several letters to: the Office of the Magistrate Elliot, on 11 September 1913. 

Followed by another letter addressed to the Master of the High Court, on 15 September 1913, 

We hold a copy Sworn Affidavit, Marry-Ann Jane Leslie, of the 4th July 1931.

And

A follow up letter, Marry Ann Jane Leslie, 30 April 1934
 

Through inheritance

Strange things happened to Mina Gcingca.

Let’s find out what happened to Mina Gcingca between 1919 after the death of her husband Jantjie Jnr. Later,

 Now, the second WILL never reach the family members

 
 Now, it’s a third WILL never reached the family. 13 March 1922

Power of Attorney given to Paul Gcingca who act as an Executor in the Estate of late Cartwright Gcingca

 
DIARMID FARM
Samuel Gcingca

We have traced his farm through Standard Bank Archives 
25-06- 1897

to

14-04-1900

 
GATBERG/NTUNJA
Paul Gcingca 

 
Between 1913 -21 the first generation of Land Dispossession was run under the government. 

 

18 April 1918 Paul Gcingca loan Marry Ann Jane Leslie £100.00 pounds British Sterling.

 

13 March 1922 Paul Gcingca is an Executor in the Late Estate of Cartwright Gcingca 
SUBDIVISIONS
 
 
 
REMI PORTION 7

the remainder of SunArt
Original as per Folio report 

119 0585 MGN

(Now the size has tampered

 

with)

And reduced to 211,1447 ha
Mina Gcingca

In the early twenties, Mina Gcingca disappeared. (Her whereabouts and remaining are still unknown even today. Her disappearance was gazetted in the Tembuland Newspaper 25 September 1931. 

The Private Investigator by the name of John Koti was hired to look after her.

 
The 28 July 1931

Sworn Affidavit

By

Petrus Johannes Janse van Rensburg gives us the evidence of what happened to the ESTATE of the Late Jantjie Jr. While he was working for Mr. J.E.B. Aling Attorney’s from 1920 -1928

 

Sworn Affidavit & Judgement 

22 May 1931

To 

15 December 1931 judgment 

How shares were allocated, divided, and lost. 

In the process Subdivisions & Remaining such as Mfula the remaining portion of SunArt.

Portion 1-7
MFULA PORTION 6

the remainder of SunArt 
Original as per Folio report 

117 3566 MGN

(Now the size has tampered

with)

And reduced to 211,1447 ha
Cartwright Gcingca 

 
Later our family lawyer Mr. Lambertus Hetcher bided against the family. Who employed him in the first place? 

Portion 1-6
MAWENI PORTION 5
Original as per Folio report 

258 1828 MGN

(Now the size has tampered

with)

And reduced to 211,1447 ha
Johanna Mvinjelwa
Portion 1-5
 

THAMSANQA PORTION 4
 

Original as per Folio report 

258 1826 MGN

(Now the size has tampered

with)

And reduced to 211,1447 ha
 

Filda Hlazo
 

Portion 1-4
SUNART  PORTION 3
Original as per Folio report 

258 1853 MGN

(Now the size has tampered

with)

And reduced to 211,1447 ha
Richard Gcingca
Portion 1-3
NTUNJA PORTION 2
Original as per Folio Report 

258 1885 MGN

 

(Now the size has tampered

with)

And reduced to 211,1447 ha
Marry-Ann Gcingca Makohliso
Portion 1-2

Several letters were signed by Mary Ann Jane 

Leslie 

4th March 1935

Ref N0. 175/131

Was the response letter from Judge H. Alberts responding to the letter that was forwarded to him on 7 March 1935.
PANGELA PORTION 1
Original as per Folio report 

258 1861 MGN

(Now the size has been tampered with)

And reduced to 211,1447 ha 
Margaret Ndunge
Portion 1-1
 

DIARMID FARM 

                                                 25-06-1897

 

                                                 14-07-1898

 

                                                 30-04-1899

  

                                                  14-04-1900

 

The table below reflects FIVE portions of GCINGCA FAMILY LAND that the Commissioner has identified for APPROPRIATION. Firstly, SUNART appears more than once with different owners, the main farm and subdivision, and a review of that these findings were sugar-coated. Secondly, we drilled to the year of purchase of MAWENI and TAMSANQA Farm whereby you could figure out that this was a Christmas Gift between the SELLER & the BUYER at the expense of GCINGCA LAND CLAIM amounting to a lower selling price. 

 

Our suspicion is that the Seller expected double pricing with a motive of delaying tactics on land appropriation. 

 

SUBDIVISION/MANIPULATION 1914 - 1932
YEARS OF PURCHASE
SunArt – 221, 1438 Hectares

vs.

258 1853

Richard Gcingca
2004-10-20

 

1932 -05-06
Ntunja – 221 1468 Hectares

vs.

258 1885

Mary Ann Jane Leslie
2004-03-22

 

1932 -05-06
Maweni – 221 1419 Hectares

vs.

258 1828 mgn

Johanna Mvinjelwa
1995-12-15

 

1932 -05-06
Pangela- 211 1447 Hectares

vs.

258 1861 mgn

Margaret Ndunge
2015-09-10

 

1932 -05-06
Thamsanqa -221,1417 Hectares

vs.

258 1826 Mgn

Filda Hlazo
1995-12-15

 

1932 -05-06
 The GCINGCA FAMILY LAND felt that the White Capitalists are still benefiting the milk and honey from our great, great, grandmother’s breast. The outcomes in the REPORT under 15.2, the GCINGCA family disposed of their Land Rights, in terms of Racial Practices that were furthering the provision of NATIVE LAND ACT 27 OF 1913 and BLACK ADMINISTRATION ACT N0.38 OF 1927

 

Therefore, our application qualifies for THE RESTITUTION OF LAND ACT N0.22 OF 1994 as per CHAPTER 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION contained in THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

 

To mention a few references on RECORD (Please find attached) the 1914 Liquidation and Distribution account of Mary Ann Gcingca, the wife to Jantjie Jnr. She was worth £2246 pounds British Sterling in her WILL & ASSETS which was never been distributed among GCINGCA FAMILY. We request and encourage the government to correct the injustice of the past through the BILL OF RIGHTS.

 

On the 5th June 1914 Liquidation and Distribution, the account appears that PAUL GCINGCA money was lent to Mary Ann Jane Lully in the total amount of £100 pounds British Sterling. 

 

Surprisingly, Jantjie Jr. Liquidation and Distribution Account, may his soul continue to Rest in Peace and Power never reached GCINGCA FAMILY in 1919. His Human, Freedom, and Security rights as a person were flushed down the drain to benefit others. The CURRENT BILL, 4 FEBRUARY 1997: - SECTION 9 contains a strong provision on LEGAL and SOCIAL equality. (Please find the attached proof in a letter written by Mary Ann Jane Lully Gcingca dated 30th April 1934)

 

Subsequent to the above, when Cartwright died in 1920 at the age of two years, he was a Minor who owned a portion of land worth more than £346 pounds British Sterling. His liquidation and distribution account never reached the family coffers, and he LOST a portion of Land that is traceable through the HECTOR & SCHUTTER FAMILY. This can be validated through the new constitution of CHILDREN’S RIGHTS. In the mitigation processes, it has been stated that PAUL GCINGCA was an executor on behalf of CARTWRIGHT GCINGCA.

 

We, the Gcingca Family hold records of all the above-mentioned findings. (Please find the attached SunArt – 1931-1935 Mary Ann Jane Lully letters)

 

Looking back at the Years of Purchase, there is a true reflection of what actually happened. The GCINGCA FAMILY LAND application was totally ignored while continuing to sell the land which brought about more confusion. We view such occurrences as the contempt of the Court as we are smelling the rat. 

 

Furthermore, based on your RECOMMENDATIONS we support 16.2 approving the claim to proceed to the evaluation stage to determine if the family was equitable compensated at the time of dispossession. In 11.1 according to the information provided on the Title Deeds, the family was paid £516 Pounds, British Sterling, as for Portion 3, (which is a dispute) because we were promised other property/ properties COMPENSATION to be made available on the valuation stages. We are looking forward to receiving such information.

 

We are having letters from 1931 to 1935 evidently portraying and committing to GCINGCA FAMILY values, Characters, and strong family background foundation. We are not ready to give up without a fight despite resolutions and Invitations issued by the court but none of the GCINGCA FAMILY honoured such an invites

 

After several court battles between the GCINGCA FAMILY and the CAPE OF GOOD HOPE Provincial Division Elliot and Master of the Supreme Court, Cape Town passed the judgment promising to pay back the money to Mina Gcingca, an estimated £10 000 British Pounds Sterling.  

 

Unfortunately, we still believe that a tragedy happened because her remaining’s & whereabouts, are still unknown today. She was absolutely denied her RIGHTS TO LIFE. Justice was delayed deliberately, and it was justice denied. 

 

While are still searching for Cartwright’s 6th portion, the rest of the five portions identified need to be returned to their rightful owners, ASAP. Mina & Cartwright’s portion is part of Mfula and Remi.

 

In summary, we are the descendant of Tribe King Jantjie Gcingca, kaMabandla, kaQunta, kaMafu, kaLanga, KaBhele. Fortunately, we voluntarily disintegrated our kingdom by choice to focus on nation-building, a non-racial society, youth empowerment, and a non-sexist society without discrimination, frills, and trappings. 

 

MKHOTHI….!!!

 

See attached list of Gcingca descendants and relatives.

 

Hope this plight will find your echoes in your hearts.

 

Kind Regards

________________________________

Ntandazo Anthony Gcingca

 

Below are various legal instruments related to land dispossession and spatial segregation. 

Resolution (159) 1855

The Transvaal government adopted Resolution 159 on 18 June 1855 which prohibited anybody who was not a burgher from owning land. The Resolution specifically proscribes Africans from having burger rights.

Occupation Act (No: 8) 1886

The Occupation Act for Government Land Situated in the Zoutpansberg and a Small Area in the North-Eastern Corner of the Waterberg District (No: 8) was passed by the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek(South African Republic). The law allowed the government to acquire land free of charge in the District of Zoutpansberg, and it became the first law passed by the ZAR to control the distribution of land in the Transvaal.  

Parliamentary Voters Registration Act 1887

The Parliamentary Voters Registration Act was passed in 1887 in the Cape parliament as a result of pressure applied by the Afrikanner Bond who felt that English parliamentarians were benefiting from an increasing number of African voters. The Act extended the franchise to the Transkei, but conversely raised the requirements for voter qualification using the issue of land ownership. It excluded voters who owned land under the system of communal or tribal ownership. Since large number of African people owned land under this system, they were excluded from the vote. As a result of the Act, 20,000 voters – mostly Africans – were disenfranchised; a third of these were in the Eastern Cape.

Xhosa speaking people nicknamed the act Tung’ umlomo (sew up the mouth). Cecil John Rhodes who supported the Bill before it became law stated that too many Africans were allowed to vote and it was time this was changed. He stated, “The native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise.” (Bernard Magubane, The making of a racist state: British imperialism and the Union of South Africa 1870-1910, p.108)

The Squatters Act (No: 11) 1887

The South African Republic (ZAR) government promulgated the Squatters Act to regulate ‘squatting’ on White owned farms. In terms of the Act, not more than five families of Blacks were permitted to live on farms. White farmers who allowed the stipulated number of Black families to live on their farms did so, on condition that they worked for them for three months.

Volksraad Resolution (No. 359) 1891

Squatting on crown lands was prohibited by Volksraad Resolution No. 359.

Act 25 of 1891

The Orange Free State government passed Act 25 in 1891. The Act withdrew the Natal Coolie Law of 1859 to discourage the settlement of Indians in the province, and prohibited them from owning fixed property in the Republic except in areas where the government designated them to live. 

Franchise and Ballot Act (No: 9) 1892

The Franchise and Ballot Act was passed by the Cape government in 1892 to further reduce the influence of the vote of Africans. This was after more complaints were raised by the Afrikaner Bond which still felt that The Parliamentary Voters Registration passed in 1887 did not go far enough in reducing the power of the African vote. For instance, in the 1890 election which brought Rhodes to power as Prime Minster, the African vote contributed one sixth of Members of Parliament (MPs) elected. Thus, in response to pressure by the Afrikaner Bond, the Franchise and Ballot Bill was drafted, debated and enacted into law. The Act further raised property qualification from £25 to £75, and added a literacy test where the voter had to be able to write their name, address and occupation. Both Africans and Coloured people were greatly disenfranchised by the Act.

Glen Grey Act 1894

In 1894 the Cape government Glen Grey Act was passed and it provided for the division of all unalienated land in the district of Glen Grey into locations. The locations were surveyed and divided into portions of about four morgens (approximately 3.4 hectares) for each existing occupier and other land owners which were approved by the governor. Land could not be mortgaged and the remaining land was to serve as commonage. Alienation and transfer of land was to be approved by the governor. There was to be no subletting or subdivision of the land, the principle of “one man one plot” was to be applied. Any person could lose the land if he failed to pay the cost of survey or quitrent per year and for rebellion.

Squatters Law Act (No: 21) 1895

Law21 passed in the Orange Free State in 1895 prohibited farmers from employing more than 5 African householders on one farm without government permission. The law also prohibited Blacks from living outside reserves. However, this proved to be ineffective as Land Companies repeatedly broke the law.

Native Reserve Location Act (No: 40) 1902

The Native Reserve Location Act was passed in 1902 in the Cape. This Act authorized the government to establish residential areas for Africans outside towns. Under this Act African people in District Six and the City areas were forcibly removed to Uitvlugt (later renamed Ndabeni) just outside Cape Town. Only those who were registered voters or had permission to stay outside the township were exempted. The police were empowered to effect the removal Africans and even use force. The Act also heralded the establishment of New Brighton, a township in Port Elizabeth.

Crown Land Disposal Ordinance (No: 57) 1903

The Crown Land Disposal Ordinance (No: 57) was passed in the Transvaal, replacing the Occupation Act of 1886. Crown land was defined as all unalienated land and all land that was property of the government regardless of how that land was acquired.

South Africa Act 1909

The South Africa Act was passed in 1909 by the British parliament bringing together four colonies, the Cape, Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal into one country, the Union of South Africa. Under the Act a central government was established with four provinces. This saw the creation of a White minority state in which Black people were excluded from political participation in the new dispensation.

Land Settlement Act (No: 12) 1912

The Land Settlement Act was passed in 1912 by the Parliament of South Africa, and it outlined the provisions for the sale of state land to whites. Subsequent to the passing of the Act, 210 farms covering a total area of 168,636 hectares was given to white farmers over four years.

Natives Land Act (No: 27)1913

The Natives Land Act was passed on 19 June 1913. The Act’s most catastrophic provision for Africans was the prohibition from buying or hiring land in 93% of South Africa. In essence, Africans, despite being more in number, were confined to ownership of 7% of South Africa’s land. Section 1, sub section ‘a’ of the Act states, “a native shall not enter into any agreement or transaction for the purchase, hire, or other acquisition from a person other than a native, of any such land or of any right thereto, interest therein, or servitude thereover.” However, Africans were permitted to buy and sell land in reserves or scheduled areas while Europeans were prohibited from owning land in these places. The Act also included a provision in the law that allowed for exceptions, which had to be approval of the Governor General. Thus, over time land was sold to Africans in areas designated as European particularly in Transvaal.

The Native Administration Bill 1917

The Native Administration Bill, debated in 1917, made recommendations for acquiring more land from Black people on a scale that was even broader than the Natives Land Act of 1913. The Act also proposed the establishment of separate Black authorities. After being passed on to the Native Land Commission, the bill was not enacted into law until 1927.

The Asiatics Land and Trading Amendment Act (No: 37) 1919

The Asiatics Land and Trading Amendment Act, passed in 1919, legalised the tenure and occupation of land by Indians before 1919. However, the Act prohibited more acquisitions of land by Indian people.  

Natives (Urban Areas) Act (No: 21) 1923

The Natives (Urban Areas) Act was passed in 1923. This Act gave power to urban local authorities to set aside land for African occupation in separate areas which were called locations. Land was not owned by Africans, but simply occupied, and people living in these areas largely worked in urban areas. White land owners within 5 kilometres of the proclaimed urban areas were prohibited from allowing Africans other than their employees to reside on their property. Employers were also required to house those of their employees who did not live in locations. All these were attempts to prevent the emergence of settlements on the outskirts of the urban areas. By design, the Act was an instrument of controlling the influx of Africans into urban areas. Those Africans who were described as ‘idle’, ‘habitually unemployed’ and those who ‘did not possess the means of honest livelihood’ were deported. Langa Township, just on the outskirts of Cape Town, was the first to be established under the Urban Areas Act. A number of amendments to the Act over the years placed even more restrictions on Africans in urban areas. 

Slums Clearance Act 1934

The Slum Clearance Act, passed in 1934, enabled municipalities to forcibly remove people who were settled in areas that were considered to be slums. As a result of the forced removals arsing from the Act in Port Elizabeth, the population of New Brighton increased from 7,827 to 16,574.

Native Trust and Land Act (No: 18) 1936

The Native Trust and Land Act was passed in 1936. It marginally extended the total percentage of land in the South African Union allocated by the Natives Land Act of 1913 to Africans as reserves from 7% to 13.6%. This Act was later renamed as the Development Trust and Land Act.  Under the Act ‘squatting’ or occupation of certain land by Africans was made illegal, unless they owned it or were employees or dependants of the employee of the land owner. The Act also established the South African Native Trust (SANT) which bought all reserve land that was not yet owned by the government and identified the so-called “Black spots” to be taken over. Under this Act, African people were rounded up and sent to reserves.

Representation of Natives Act (No: 12) 1936

The Representation of Natives Act was passed in 1936 by parliament. It removed black voters in the Cape from the common voters rolls and barred them from running for office, but conversely offered that ‘natives’ be represented by a white person. Under the Act, a native amongst other descriptions was defined as someone” who is desirous of being regarded as a native for the purposes of the Act or is by general acceptance and repute a native and follows in his ordinary or daily mode of life habits of a native.”  (Colour Sheila Caffyn Patterson, and Culture in South Africa, p. 363)

Natives Laws Amendment Act (No: 46) 1937

The Natives Laws Amendment Act was passed in 1937, and it prohibited the buying of land by Africans from Whites in urban areas except by permission from the government. Under the Act, authorities in urban areas were to keep a record of all Africans living in the designated area. If the Minister of Native Affairs felt that the number of Africans had increased above the needs of the labour market, he was empowered to expel the ‘excess number’. In essence the Natives Laws Amendment Act complemented the Urban Areas Act by compelling local government authorities to vigorously enforce the latter.

Transvaal Pegging Act (No: 28) 1939

The Transvaal Pegging Act, passed in 1939, outlawed the extension of ownership and occupation of land by Indians in the Transvaal. The Act also halted the issuing of more trading licences to Indian people.

Trading and Occupation of Land Restriction Act 1943

The Trading and Occupation of Land Restriction Act was passed in 1943 and covered both the Transvaal and Natal.  Under the Act, Indians were not allowed to buy land in predominantly White owned areas in Durban. Whites were not allowed to buy land in Indian owned areas without first obtaining a permit.

Pegging Act 1943

The Pegging Act, passed in 1943, prohibited Indian people from extending their businesses or buying in White owned areas in Natal. In essence, the Act pegged the pattern of racially based land ownership, particularly in Durban and other areas, for three years. Property transfer between Indians and non-Indians was disallowed. The Act was passed following the findings of the second Broome Commission, which investigated the purchase of property by Indian people in White owned areas in Durban. In the Transvaal, the Pegging Act did not introduce new clauses, but it extended the Transvaal Pegging Act by three years. After its passage, protests by the Indian community broke out. As the Act was for three years, at its expiry the Smuts led government introduced the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Bill in 1946.

Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act (No: 25) 1945

The Natives Urban Areas Consolidation Act was passed in 1945. Amongst other things, the Act permitted Africans to have permanent residence in an urban area only if that person could prove that he/she had stayed in the area since birth, or had been staying lawfully in the area for 15 years, or had worked for the same employer for 10 years.

Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act (No: 28) 1946

The Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act (also known as the Ghetto Act) severely restricted Indian people from buying or occupying land outside certain exempted areas. This was an attempt to marginalise Indians and force them to live in certain restricted areas, mostly in towns. In return for the restrictions on land ownership, Indians were offered a limited form of parliamentary representation, mainly through White representatives. The law was repealed, however, in 1948 as one of the first legislative acts of the Nationalist government in the implementation of its policy of apartheid.

Group Areas Act (No: 41) 1950

The Group Areas Act was passed into law in 1950. After its passing, the Act permitted the government to establish separate residential areas based on race. In terms of the Act Black or White South Africans were prohibited from buying property or living in area that had been proclaimed as an area for one racial group. This act saw the destruction and forced removal of Black communities such as District Six in Cape Town, Sophiatown in Johannesburg and Cator Manor in Natal when their areas were proclaimed as White. 

Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act (No: 52) 1951 

Under the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act private landowners and local government authorities were compelled to demolish and remove all structures or buildings that were built without permission of the land owner. The same was applicable for local government authorities concerning buildings or structures erected in violation of building regulations or planning provisions.

Natives Resettlement Act (Act No: 19) 1954

The Natives Resettlement Act, passed in 1954, gave the government power to remove African land owners and tenants with legal rights in urban freehold areas. The Act increased government control over African areas of settlement regardless of whether those areas were designated or not. In essence, the Act gave the government power to prevent Africans from living in or close to cities by relocating them to far flung areas such as townships. Section 2 of the Act provided for the creation of a Natives Resettlement Board (NRB) to provide for the removal of African people “from any area in the magisterial district of Johannesburg or any adjoining magisterial district and their resettlement elsewhere”. As a consequence, afterits passing, the there was a forced relocation of 100,000 Africans from Sophiatown and western Johannesburg to Meadowlands and other areas.

Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (No: 46) 1959

The Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, passed in 1959, was built on the foundation laid by the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. Whereas the Bantu Authorities Act was geared towards developing local government, the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act provided “...for the gradual development of self governing Bantu units and for direct consultation between the Government of the union and these national units in regard to matters affecting the interests of such units.” Thus, this Act was a major step towards territorial segregation through the creation of eight (later expanded to ten) ethnic homelands or Bantustans. At the Act’s introduction Hendrik Verwoerd stated, “The white man wants to retain his domination over his part of the country and is prepared to pay a certain price for it, namely by giving the Bantu full rights to develop in their own areas” (Ben Temkin,Buthelezi: A Biography, p. 67). The Act was based on recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, which pushed for the extension of reserves into independent territories based on ethnicity.

Bantu Laws Amendment Act (No: 42) 1964

The Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1964 gave the government the power “to expel any African from any of the towns or the white farming areas at any time" (Leonard Thompson, (1990), A History of South Africa, p.199). This finally abolished labour tenancy and squatting on white farms.

Black Communities Development Act (No: 4) 1984

The Black Communities Development Act, passed in 1984, was intended to facilitate racially separate group areas. Land was zoned for Africans and managed as separate zones. For instance, the Act named Diepkloof as a place of residence for black people, but by the same token, firmly maintained it as an area in which black South Africans could not own land. It also allowed the government, at its discretion, to revoke areas that were previously classified as established for settlement. This meant that residents occupying these areas became illegal squatters, subject to removal. Some historians have named the Black Communities Development Act as the “sister legislation to the Group Areas Act.” (Cheryl Walker et al.,Land, Memory, Reconstruction, and Justice, p.73)

Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act (No: 108) 1991

The Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act was passed in 1991 to repeal the Black Communities Development Act (1984), the Groups Areas Act (1950), the Native Trust and Land Act (1936), the Natives Land Act (1913), and other legislative mechanisms that enforced a system of racially based residential areas.