VAALPLAAS COMMUNITY CLAIM

Paternoster, West Coast

Report compiled by
Jackie Sunde for
Masifundise Development Organisation
November 2003

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements
PART 1:

Narrative Report

PART 11:

Annexures

Annexure 1: Group Area Proclamations No 4, 1967 and No 199, 1981

Annexure 2: List of Claimant Households and Claimants Interviewed
Annexure 3: Maps
Annexure 4: Methodology for research conducted by Masifundise
Annexure 5: Vaalplaas Deeds Research
Annexure 6: Map of Stephan Brothers Lands
Annexure 7: Letter from the Acting Regional Land Claims Commissioner

Acknowledgements
The information used for this report has been gathered by the Vaalplaas claimants
themselves as well as Mr Niel Matthys, Mr Thandekile Mbunge, Ms Elise Petersen and
Jackie Sunde during the period March - September 2003. Masifundise would like to
thank all of the Vaalplaas Land Claimants, but in particular, the Land Claim
Committee, for the information provided for this report and the video made for this
purpose. This process of remembering has been a painful one for the community. The
completion of the report would not have been possible without the assistance and
extremely rigorous research of Mr Lance van Sittert whose prior historical work on
the St Helena Bay area has proved critical in understanding the complexity of the
social relations of the period under discussion.

PART ONE
1. Introduction
This report presents the story of the Vaalplaas Land Claim, documenting the historical
background and life stories of the Vaalplaas land claimants living in Paternoster, a small
historical fishing village approximately 15 kilometres north west of Vredenburg on the
West Coast. In 1997 a group of community members, comprising 34 households,
began the process of applying for restitution of their rights to a portion of land in the
village, commonly referred to as Vaalplaas, now registered as Erf 903, formerly a
portion of the farm Uitkomst.
The Vaalplaas land claimants tell a story of a series of injustices - the systematic
dispossession of their beneficial rights on the land settled by their ancestors, alienation
from their use rights to harvest marine resources along the coast, a harsh, exploitative
employment relationship, of being forced to vacate their homes through a combination
of subtle pressure as well the violence of a forced eviction by police, their lack of
access to adequate legal representation and then their neglect by a bureaucracy that
failed to meet their need for information, failed to respond timeously to them and
subsequently informed them that their claim had no merit. Vaalplaas histories reflect
the stark reality of a system of racial, class and gendered oppression along the western
coast of this country. The experiences of this small community mirror the larger
experiences of many indigenous coastal dwellers in this country who have gradually
been alienated from their direct access to the sea and land. Through tracing the
changes in two families, the Brutus family and the Pharo family, both initially
coloured but one then reclassifying white in the 1950s, one can chart the stark and
also the more subtle impact of a system of racial and class oppression as it played out,
irrevocably shaping the lives of the descendants of these two families - one
dispossessed of their human dignity, their rights to land and their traditional livelihoods
whilst the other became more and more privileged. The latter now continues to be
enriched through current local economic and tourist developments in the village.
The report aims to provide an overview of the key issues emerging from both the
unfolding of the process of this land claim, as well as the historical experiences of this
community with the intention of supporting their claim for a just settlement to both the

rights and interests that are contested in this case. The historical research conducted
for the purposes of this report shows the layered nature of the property relations of
Vaalplaas. It is clear that the current claimants and their ancestors were long-term
occupiers whose tenure relations were embedded in the complex social relations of the
time. These social relations were constituted through a range of over-lapping, at
times contradictory rights and obligations, weaving a fine net with strands of labour,
residential, sexual and relational interests.
Perhaps the most critical aspect of this case is the fact that it makes most visible the
contradictions in our notions of what constitutes apartheid histories. Here we see
that two parallel stories can co-exist for over a century and what is now written on the
landscape of this area did not necessarily reflect the inner place of survivors of this
system of oppression. Whilst externally, the official memory of Vaalplaas is
documented through the myriad planning and development records of a racist
bureaucracy, internally the residents of Vaalplaas resisted the systematic process of
psychological and physical dispossession and kept alive a sense of themselves as free,
independent human beings. This report thus attempts to capture these different
versions of the history of Vaalplaas. It reminds us that land is more than merely the
contested plot that we now stand upon - it also holds the spirit of what is below, above
and has gone before us. It is clear that if the restitution process is unable to
acknowledge the way in which these simultaneous and often contradictory rights coexisted in Vaalplaas, we will only remember a portion of this land.

2. Recalling history
2.1 Establishing the Vaalplaas community
Vaalplaas lies at the heart of the development of what is known today as the
picturesque historical fishing and tourist village of Paternoster on the Atlantic West
Coast, approximately 15 kilometres West of Vredenburg, within the Saldanha Bay
Municipal area. Through a rich oral tradition of family history-telling, it is recorded by
the Vaalplaas claimants that in the late1800s their ancestors, Ou Oom Awie Coraizin
and his wife, Magdaleen Coraizin, came to the area now known as Vaalplaas from the
Groot Paternoster area further north along the coast. Oom Awie was a fisherman and
a builder who also had some livestock and came to Vaalplaas in search of new grazing
for his cattle. It is not clear what the formal relationship between the original settlers
and the title holder was. The formal title deeds for this farm state that the land was
owned by a Mr C J Walters who received a land grant under the Colonial Crown Land
Disposal Act No. 11 of 1878. There is no evidence that Walters actually occupied,
used or lived on the land or any part of it. The claimants state that Coraizin settled on
a vacant, unused portion of land adjacent to the sea, where he built a cottage.
Subsequently he assisted his children and their family members to build additional
cottages. Two of these cottages built by Oom Awie prior to 1900 remain today. This
building tradition was carried forward by his son who is credited with the building of
the church in Paternoster as well as a number of other buildings in the St Helena Bay
region1.
The exclusive beneficial title of the first occupiers was recognised, evidenced by the
fact that their descendants took over the rights of their parents and new houses were
built. As the family members increased and others married into the family, they were
accepted and their rights were recognised.

By the early 1900s the fishing community of Vaalplaas was well established. The
Vaalplaas community dwellings were adjacent to a long stretch of beach, protected at
one end by the distinctive boulders of the West Coast that reach out into St Helena
Bay. These provided a measure of protection for the fishers when launching from the
1

Personal communication with Susan Coraizin, August 2003.

beach. At the time Oom Awie and his extended family harvested a wide variety of
marine resources including snoek, harders, mussels, crayfish and St Josephs Sharks
both for their own consumption and for sale to other residents in the village and
traders from elsewhere. They built small wooden boats, using both sail and rowing
oars. They also used beach seine to catch harders. One of the houses built by a
resident of the Vaalplaas community is built immediately above the high water mark.
(This family was forced to vacate this building which has been restored and is now a
restaurant, attracting tourists through its location directly on the beach as well as its
charm as an authentic old fisher cottage). The second generation of fishers were
taught fishing and boat-building skills by their fathers and their grand-father. The
community tell of age-old knowledge of the sea, of the ability to read the currents and
the weather, to know when the fish are running as well as a deeply entrenched
understanding of the importance of sustainable harvesting of resources.
The proximity of their houses to the sea was critical - at night they left a candle
burning in the window of a cottage so that they could guide their boats home to the
shore-line safely. The family also established a vegetable garden several kilometres
west of Vaalplaas, on the ridge now known as Klipkop, where they built an over-night
shelter. One of the claimants recalls as a child how the men used to go by donkey cart
and tend the vegetable garden and if it rained they would remain overnight. This
vegetable garden maintained the small community over several generations. They lost
the use rights to this garden in the 1960s when a white property owner bought the
land and they were no longer able to farm this land.
Several other coloured families came to settle on Vaalplaas shortly after Oom Awie,
married family members of the Coraizins and soon became part of the Vaalplaas
community. A coloured man known as Piet Pharo arrived, settled on the land and
married Sophia Stoffberg. The Brutus, Besters, Clarks and Kuilder families also
established themselves and became part of the community.
Piet Pharo and his wife had three children of their own. It is alleged (as stated in
affadavit presented to Vredenburg Crt by Vyver in 2001) that Sophia had a son named
Gert through her relationship with a white visitor, Mr Bester.
Mr Bester was a man of wealth and standing and through him, his son, Gert Pharo
subsequently gained access to considerable wealth. However, as a child, Gert grew up

on Vaalplaas playing together with his coloured cousins. Several claimants recall
stories from their parents of the early days on Vaalplaas when all the children played
together, slept together and fished together. The local fishers formed a very close-knit
community, forging strong bonds through their dependence on one another for their
survival at sea.

Oom Awie was known as die bouer and built most of the 26

dwellings on Vaalplaas.
The oldest living claimant (Oom Abie Coraizin, who was Oom Avies son) and Aunt
Celie Kuilder as well as the younger generation of claimants born on Vaalplaas, all
recall that their parents believed that they owned their own houses, a right that came
from the fact that Oom Avie had settled on the land and built the houses which were
subsequently inherited by the next generation. They also assert that much later Gert
Pharo reinforced this notion verbally. They all maintained their own houses and paid
no rent or tithe to him. They did not regard themselves as his tenants, hulle het gevoel
dit was hullesn.. ..wat hulle voorouers gebou het (Caroline Abrahams, 22/05/03).
The current memory of their great -grandfather is of a pioneer and craftsman,
independent from any contractual obligations, either to a landowner or employer, who
established a proud family tradition of building and fishing that was to form the basis of
the Vaalplaas community in the years to come.
2.2 Vaalplaas within the history of the Bay
The history of the Paternoster region is well recorded in a range of extremely rich
archival material (Van Sittert, 1992;2003). Archeological records suggest that the
area was inhabited by humans from pre-colonial times who harvested the marine
resources in the area.2 Nearby St Helena Bay is recorded as the first landfall site of
the Portuguese explorer, Vasco da Gama in 1497. Early explorations by the VOC in
the region suggest that at the time the area was populated by transitory bands of
pastoralists cum hunter-gatherers (Waterhouse in Van Sittert, 1992:4).
During the late 18th century the settlement appears to have grown in response to the
whaling, fishing and agricultural activities of the region.
Van Sitterts work suggests that the origins of the Vaalplaas fishing community might
well lie with the origins of similar fishing communities that were established in this
2

See Parkington, J 1976 and Penn, NJ 1986 cited in Van Sittert, 1992.

region during the 19th century and whose origins can be traced to the simultaneous
processes of land alienation and class differentiation taking place in the rural areas of
the West Coast at this time (Van Sittert, 1992:13).
The effects of sub-division and land shortage on small farmers, ongoing dispossession
of the indigenous population and the abolition of slavery and ex-slaves apprenticeships
all contributed to the creation of a rural underclass in the western coastal districts of
the colony..For all these people the choices were few and stark indeed. The
existence of tracts of crown and waste land in the region held out hope of a modicum
of continued independence for those willing to run the risks of uncertain tenure and
possible official and farmer harassment attached to squatting ( ibid, 14).
The formal ownership and other tenurial relationships that might have existed on the
portion of land that came to be known as Vaalplaas when the Coraizins first settled on
this land are not recorded. Vaalplaas is not referred to directly within the deeds
register, but clearly formed part of the much larger property Uitkomst, portions of
which were divided off and transferred to a number of different owners (See Annexure
4, GP 1740/2000). The deeds for the portion of the farm Uitkomst which appear to
correlate with Vaalplaas as it was known to the claimants (Lot 16 of portion D)
indicate that the farm was granted to a Mr C Walters in 1878 and transferred from Mr
Walters to a Mr David Marthinus Pharo in 1928 and subsequently from him to Mr Gert
Pharo in 1929.3
As noted earlier in this report, the descendants of Ou Oom Awie and Magdalene
Coraizin recall that the impression was created that Oom Awie established beneficial
rights on vacant land which subsequently came to be regarded as the familys land.
The building of houses on the land consolidated the extended family and communitys
sense of ownership and beneficial title over the years.
Due to the multiple sub-division of properties in the area the formal ownership and use
of that particular portion of the land remains difficult to confirm. The available
evidence drawn from the 1882 Fishing Lease Report 4 suggests that by the time of the
sitting of this Commission, most of the land adjacent to the high water mark in
3

Masifundise recommends that the Commission undertakes a more detailed analysis of the division of
Uitkomst and traces the deeds for the particular portion under discussion.
4
This Report was commissioned by the Select Committee on Fishing Leases for the House of
Assembly of the Cape Of Good Hope in 1882.

Paternoster was either a) owned by the well established fishing merchants, the Stephan
Brothers in terms of crown land grants, or b) leased from the colonial authority by
Stephan Brothers, Ehlers or Van Rosenveld, that is, treated as loaned Crown Land or
c) a portion of other Crown Land such as other fishing places, outspans and
commonage.
Eighteen fishing leases are recorded in 1882 at Small Paternoster. The Commission
reports that Ehlers abandoned his claims to the leases at Small Paternoster while Van
Rosenveld, who still held 14 leases was now completely surrounded by Stephan
Brothers land through recent purchases (Van Sittert, 1992;49). In his evidence given
to the Commission, Mr Ehlers gave evidence to the effect that his leases were adjacent
to Mr Stephans property and that he had seven leases all in all, four from Mr Stephan
and three from a Mr Walters. He makes reference to having received permission to
build on the land on the authority of Mrs Walters who was a widow and the owner of
the adjoining land. He states that he was given permission to lease the land from the
Civil Commissioner.
Subsequently Mr Van Rosenveld and Mr C Walters sent in an application for the
Crown land at the back of it. It was subsequently granted to Mr Stephan. 5 This
information creates the impression that it is unlikely that the portion of land under
discussion was unclaimed or remained unclaimed long thereafter in the late 1800s
when Oom Avie arrived in Paternoster, particularly given its prime position mid-way
along the bay and adjacent to the high tide mark. The precise nature of the
occupational and lease arrangements on the land thus remain fairly speculative. A map,
exact date unknown, indicating the lease lots and Crown Land showing Stephans land
clearing indicates that the Lot D of Uitkomst does overlap with the Vaalplaas portion,
even though the main Uitkomst farm was located a considerable distance to the north
east of Vaalplaas (See Appendix 6). This map therefore would support the contention
that the farm came into the hands of the Stephan Brothers.
Of particular relevance to this report is the research conducted by Van Sittert on
aspects of the social and political economy of the St Helena Bay area during this
period (Van Sittert, 1992). From this research it would appear that the historical
memory of the current claimants does indeed reflect aspects of the reality of the lives
of their ancestors. It seems that this was a period fraught with contradictions, of
5

See Report of the Select Committee on Fishing Leases, 1982.

10

overlapping and simultaneous rights, freedoms and obligations and that the social
and economic relations operating within the Paternoster region were always contested.
It is possible that Oom Avie was given permission by the lease holder or land owner to
build himself a house on the property and that implicit in any contract he may have
entered into was the understanding that this would be his house and that he retained his
identity as an independent contractor, not withstanding the fact that he might have
been exchanging this for certain services. This theme of independent contractor
dominates the narrative of the claimants as well as that of the historical work done on
the fishermen of this period. With regards to occupation of land therefore, there
appears to have existed a range of property relations within Paternoster at the turn of
the 20th century, ranging from squatting to tenancy and lease arrangements to beneficial
title and private ownership.
Race at this stage was not necessarily an obstacle to use or control over land, with at
least one coloured person recorded as a lessee6.
Van Sittert notes that a range of factors shaped the character of fisher communities in
the Bay at the turn of the 19th century such as the uncertainties of fishing, the interdependence of fishing with agricultural production and the nature of fishing technology
at the time. What is significant is that relations of production were egalitarian and
based on the share system ( Van Sittert,1992:xxiii). The commercialisation of
Western Cape Agriculture in the second half of the 19th century, created expanded
opportunities for merchant capital(Van Sittert, 1992: xxv). What followed was a
lengthy process whereby these merchant capitalists consolidated their hold over the
fishing processes along the coast. In the Paternoster region this was dominated by one
particular family, the Stephan family. The strategies used by the Stephans and others to
gain control are documented by Van Sittert and well represented in archival records 7.
Over a period of time the Stephans gained ownership of large tracts of coastal land
and introduced a number of ways of controlling fishing labour such as adapting the
share system to meet their needs, appropriating the whole product of labour and for
some, free credit, subsistence allowances and free housing (ibid, xxv).
These efforts to control fishing labour where variously hindered and assisted by the
colonial state over the period under discussion.
6

Personal communication with historian Lance van Sittert.

See for example the Report of the Select Committee on Fishing Leases ordered by the House of
Assembly, 1882.
7

11

What is notable however is that the attempts to control the fishing labour force and
hence the proletarianisation of this class were uneven and marked by strong resistance
to this process. Van Sittert comments on a process and period of sustained resistance
marked in some instances by specific acts of resistance but more often through the
assertion of a consciousness by fishermen of themselves as independent producers
(ibid;xxxi).
He comments that being in the employ of one of the fishing merchants did not
necessarily imply acceptance of the status quo and the demands of the contract,
however, and it is perhaps more useful to see the formal contract as the explicit,
class based embodiment of relations of production in the fishery. Another implicit
contract was fashioned by the daily lived experience of owners and men in the
fisheries, informed by the moral economy which implied certain obligations on the part
of owners as regards weekly allowance, price per fish, credit and housing.. ( ibid:51).
From the historical research conducted for the purposes of this report it would appear
therefore that whilst it is difficult to describe the precise nature of the property
relations of Vaalplaas, it is clear that the current claimants and their ancestors were
longterm occupiers whose tenure relations were embedded in the complex social
relations of the time. These social relations were constituted through a range of overlapping, at times contradictory rights and obligations, weaving a fine net with strands
of labour, residential, sexual and relational interests.
3. Satisfaction of Section 2 Criteria
Section 2 of the Land Restitution Act states:
a) The claimants and beneficiaries, or their antecedents in law, must have
possessed rights in land in the area which is the subject of the claim.
b) Claimants or their antecedents must have been dispossessed of rights in the
land identified in the claim, this dispossession must have occurred after the 19 th
of June 1913, and it must have been as a result of racially discriminatory laws
or of racially discriminatory practices as defined in Section 1 of Act No. 22 of
1994.

12

c) Claims for restitution must have been lodged with the RLCC no later than the
31 st December 1998.
d) Just and equitable compensation, or some other just and equitable
consideration must not have already been received in respect of the
dispossession.
3.1 First Criterion: Presence on particular land of bearers of rights in land
Considerable evidence indicates that the claimants and their antecedants had a
presence on the particular land of the bearers of rights in Vaalplaas and were longterm occupiers of this land.
The Vaalplaas claimants estimate that the number of households living within the
community at the time of the Proclamation of the Group Areas Act in 1967 (no.4) was
approximately 34. Several of these households comprised more than merely a nuclear
family, but included extended family and adult children. It was customary for an adult
male to be allocated their own home on Vaalplaas once he got married.
The precise number of individuals living on the farm at the time is not known.
In 1987 the Structure Plan commissioned by the municipality for the area (Brand,
Crous, Steyn and Berger, 1987) indicated that there were 147 coloured residents. The
1967 Group Areas Proclamation covering this area was amended in 1981 (Gazette No.
7828) to exclude a portion of the farm Uitkomst on the north east section. In the first
proclamation this area had been designated for the white population. However the
1981 proclamation restored this as a coloured area. It is telling that the Stucture Plan
states
Hierdie (1981) proklamasie wysig die van 1967 (nr. 4) deurdat die
noordoostelike gedeeltes van die beplanningsgebied van Blanke - na
Kleurlinggegebiede geproklameer is en wel in terme van die Wet op
Groepsgebiede van 1966. Alhoewel die 1981 proklamasie n verbetering op die
vorige bestaande indeling was, akkomodeer die nie die ongeveer 147
Kleurlinge huidiglik woonagtig in die Blanke groepsgebied nie (vergelyk
planne nrs 4.030.01 en 4.030.02) (Brandt et al, Structure Plan, 1987: 8).

13

It is estimated therefore that there were approximately 147 people affected by the
dispossession. The community has drawn up its own list of community claimants,
comprising 34 households, verified through its mandated representatives who have
formed a Land Claim Committee8.
Description of the Land and Geography of the area
Vaalplaas comprised a portion of the larger farm, Uitkomst, that underwent a series of
divisions, with numerous portions transferred to various owners from as early as 1878
onwards. What was once Vaalplaas is now bounded by the development that has
taken place on portions of the Farm Uitkomst nr 23/13 and 23/6 as well as farms 26,
34 and 37. Vaalplaas (Portion 16 Lot D of Uitkomst), now known as Erf 903
Paternoster has been subdivided by the current owners, roads have been constructed
and tarred and titles to smaller plots than the original plots have been transferred to
individual property owners. The area known to the claimants is approximately 4, 6
hectares in size and now comprises 67 erven of which it is estimated that half have
already been sold. Most of the original cottages built by the claimants antecedants
have been demolished in the last five years.
There are two of the original cottages now standing vacant. Four of the original
cottages have been restored and sold to new owners. One of the original cottages is
still occupied by Abie Coraizin and Celie Coraizin who were given life rights through
the ESTA judgement in 2001.
The house in which they live was built by Ou Oom Awie in 1900. Eight houses have
been built recently on the subdivided plots on Vaalplaas and several are currently under
construction.
The Nature of the Rights at the Time of Dispossession

This list has been amended since the first draft of this report, increasing the total to 34. It does not

consistently define claimants in terms of their individual claims. In general is focuses on a

households claim, defined by the group of persons who were living together in a particular dwelling
on Vaalplaas in 1990. A far more carefully researched profile needs to be developed, perhaps
determined by residency on the farm at the time of the Group Areas Act proclamations. This will
constitute the group that was dispossessed. Dispossession occurred over time and the removals
happened in the 1990s. The claimant group is made up of 32 families.

14

As noted above, Oom Avie and his sons built most of the houses on Vaalplaas. The
houses were initially stone and later brick structures, whitewashed in the traditional
style of the West Coast Fishing villages. They were two - three roomed houses with
outside washing and toilet facilities. Later families added on structures outside. In one
instance a young son and his new bride built a second, wooden house on the property
of his parents house when he got married. The Pharos erected a blok huis on the
farm for workers where one of the claimants and his family lived however the date of
construction of this accommodation is not known.
The community believed that the houses and land surrounding each dwelling was
owned by the respective family living in that dwelling. No formal demarcation of these
properties was required.
In practice the allocation of housing and the rules and understanding governing the use
of land around the houses was part of the well established intra-communal norms and
tradition which was passed down through the three generations that lived there after
Oom Avie.
In this regard, particular families were regarded as having specific rights over specific
dwellings. When the person recognised as the original title holder (usually the senior
male) died, the house remained in the possession of the family, initially his widow or
partner and then later was passed to one of the children. At times this was the older
child but in some cases it was the last child remaining in the household. Prior to the
1960s there does not appear to have been any suggestion that tenancy was in
any way linked to employment. The occupiers paid no rent and renovated and
maintained their own dwellings. Specific dwellings held particular significance for
certain families who recall with great pride the fact that they were born in those
houses, het my man daar gevat and gave birth to their own children in these houses.
Other houses have historical significance to families because of the memories and
family artifacts that they contain.
Selma Brutus says The house on Vaalplaas, the family homestill there locked up
has two inside doors that were built by my father.
The timber was picked up on the shores of Paternoster from shipwrecksthis is very
precious to me (Selma Brutus: 2003). Several of the families buried their deceased
on Vaalplaas.
Use of the land and related resources - and the shaping of community

15

From the very earliest moment of occupation of the land at Vaalplaas the community of
Vaalplaas relied on their direct access to the sea and marine resources for their survival
and livelihoods. The extraction of resources from the sea adjacent to the land was a
fundamental part of their very survival as a community and, simultaneously, the very
nature of this livelihood demanded a form of community . The risky and hazardous
conditions at sea, the nature of fishing gear in the early 1900s, the lack of
infrastructure such as jetties and slipways coupled with the seasonal nature of their
livelihoods forced the fishers to work in harmony, developing a shared, mutually
supporting system of customary rules and co - management. The customary use rights
of the land adjacent to the sea and the marine resource itself were held broadly as a
community group initially. These customary use rights belonging to the Vaalplaas
claimant group continued even after the Pharos established their fishing business and
began to employ members of this claimant community in a more formal relationship.
Community members fished for the Pharos and harvested for themselves. The
customary practice of harvesting particular species, such as harders, was passed down
from father to son. The harders skipper (subsequently plaatjie holder), normally had
a group of men working with him and the catch was shared amongst these men. Even
when this use right became more institutionalised and fishers had to have permits,
known as plaatjies, this use right was passed from father to son. It is only since 1995
that these use rights have been alienated from the individuals who held them and now
they can no longer be inherited or transferred automatically within a family9.
In individual interviews and group workshops the claimants repeatedly describe an
extremely close-knit community at Vaalplaas, where they lived as one large family,
bound through reciprocal and mutually beneficial ties, depending on one another for
emotional, financial and physical support. It would appear that if anything, this sense
of community was strengthened over the years in the face of the harshness of the
employment conditions with the Pharos.
Several of the claimants describe periods of intense financial hardship as a result of the
poor wages and the failure of the Pharos to support the many families who lost family
members at sea. They describe the ease with which they could rely on one another in
times of hardship.
9

This shift in the transfer of use rights needs further research. Two of the claimants report that their
fathers used to have plaatjies and now they are no longer allocated permits and hence are not
permitted to harvest harders.

16

The family trees of the claimants indicate the close-knit nature of the community, with
many of the Coraizin family members marrying into one of the other Vaalplaas families
such as the Brutus, Summers or Kuilders. A network of ties of common descent and
of marriage or common law partnership is clearly visible.
Life was not always easy on Vaalplaas. We had to cook mussels in an open fire
outside. The Pharos did not bother, they gave R 10 subs on Friday. We had to find
our own food from Mondays till then to surviveThe children played together until
late at night. They met regularly at Oom Piet Coraizins house to listen to stories told
by him (Naomi Cloete, 2003).
3.2 Second Criterion: Dispossession of Rights in land on a racial basis after 1913
(i) Alienation from control of use rights to marine resources
It appears that the shift in familial and neighbourly relationships, from that of a close
knit community of equals, mutually dependent on one another for livelihoods and
survival, gradually changed as Gert grew older and established himself as a person of
independent means (allegedly through gifts from his white father, Bester). It appears
that there was a gradual proletarianisation of the fishers of Vaalplaas and a slow,
overlapping process of class differentiation, whereby in the 1930s Gert gradually came
to be seen as Baas Gert and began to pay some of the fishers to catch fish for him
and build boats that he owned. It would appear that at this stage the fishers
continued to catch for their own consumption and sale, still regarding themselves in
part as independent contractors.
However Aunt Celie recalls that ons moet alles na hulle verhandel vir kos - as jy nie
n kans kry om see toe te gaan. There were plentiful snoek stocks at the time.
Gert had a boat that went to Lamberts Baai to fish and several of the Vaalplaas fishers
worked on this boat for him. Gert died in the 1940s and his two sons, Peter or
Pikkie and Joseph - Joey Pharo took over. Several of the older residents of
Vaalplaas recall their parents talking about Gert and the fact that they did not refer to
him as Baas Gert as he had grown up as one of them. In their testimony in court the
Pharos suggest that their father Gert established the crayfish industry in Paternoster in
the 1930s. This is corroborated by archival records which show that by the early

17

1930s Gert Pharo was an established fish merchant. Correspondence between him
and the authorities reveals that he had purchased a fishing license on land near Cape
Columbine at Hoedjies Bay and that he was already a man of considerable means. His
correspondence was done with the letter head bearing the title Gert Pharo - Fishing
Merchant (Archival records).
By the mid 1960s Piekie and Joey Pharos status as the bosses appears to have been
well and truly established. Without exception the claimants report extremely harsh
labour conditions. In addition to the labour provided by those living on Vaalplaas, the
Pharos recruited three families to come and work for them in their fishing business in
the late 60s and a fourth man married a person born on Vaalplaas and entered into
employment with the Pharos in 1971. These families acknowledge that they knew that
their tenancy was linked to their employment, although they had no written
employment contracts. Despite the perception that their housing was linked to their
employment they report that they had to maintain their own homes.
They describe a period in the 1960s and 1970s when the fishing business was
flourishing and the Pharos owned many boats - some of which sailed as far afield as
Namibia. One of the claimants stated that the Pharos told them in the 1970s that they
had applied for fishing quotas on behalf of the fisher people of Vaalplaas.
It would appear that when quotas were introduced into the fishing industry in this
country they were allocated a considerable quota. In the 1970s the Pharos quota
was 70 tonnes.
This was gradually reduced through the restructuring of the industry and in the 91/92
season this was reduced to 11 tonnes and in the 1995 season it was five tonnes
(Vredenburg Magistrates Crt Papers: Uitspraak: 2001:1070)10. At this time the Pharos
had a factory on their premises where they processed the fish that was then collected
by truck and taken to be marketed in Cape Town. Many of the women claimants
worked in the stoor where they describe appalling working conditions, for little pay.
Several of the women claimants also worked in the Pharos homes where they cleaned,
10

According to several claimants they are still listed as beneficiaries on Pierre Pharos quota

application. Pierre Pharo still distributes monies periodically to some of his former fishing
employees and although they know he has a substantial quota they do not know who fishes if for him
in Cape Town or the exact size of the quota

18

cooked, did the washing and also looked after the young Pharo children. Without
exception the claimants report extremely harsh labour conditions. There were no
safety provisions for fishers on the boats and several fishermen lost their lives at sea.
Mable Bailey lost her 17 year old son and Mathilda Clark lost her 15 year old son at
sea catching crayfish. Mabel said My youngest son drowned at the age of 17 years
shortly after the schools closed for the December holidays. He passed his Standard
6 I firmly believe that if the Pharos had paid their workers a better wage, it would
not have been necessary for my son to go and catch crayfish. The Pharos paid very
little compensation to the widows of these fishermen. In Aunt Celies case, her
common law partner and father of her 11 month child, Samual Brutus drowned in 1968
whilst working on one of Pharos boats. The Pharos did not pay for his burial despite
the fact that he was related to them through his fathers marriage to their aunt. When
Aunt Celie went to the office to claim his pay for the week with her baby on her arm
Joey and Piekie Pharo said that her husband had skuld and hence she got nothing and
said of Piekie hy het nie n vlenter gevoel. A week later they gave her R2 for milk for
her child and continued to only give her this for another year. She subsequently was
forced to go and work for them in the factory so that she could survive (Interview with
C Coraizin, 3/04/03).
Selmas father born in 1906, worked as a fisherman on the Pharos boats until he
retired when he was 62 years old. Two of her brothers also worked for them. She
says my brother caught crayfish for the Pharos and earned 6 cents a crayfish. In 1986
my eldest brother drowned while catching snoek for the Pharos.
A trawler for Oceana collided with the smaller boat in Stompneus Bay. Four fishermen
drowned. There was no compensation and payouts for families(Selma Brutus:
2003).
(ii)

Formal ownership of Vaalplaas land

Selma Brutuss father, Samuel Gert Brutus, was a direct descendant of old Piet Pharo
who was a coloured man who also settled at Vaalplaas in the 1800s and was part of
the Vaalplaas community. Piet Pharo, married Sophia Stoffberg and had four children.
One of these children, Wilhelmina, married a Brutus and gave birth to Selmas father
Samual Gert Brutus. As indicated above, it is alleged that Sophia and Ou Piets fourth

19

child, Gert Pharo, was in fact not his own, but the son of a Mr Bester, who was white.
Title to the portion of land now known as Vaalplaas appears to have been transferred
to Gert after his fathers death in 1929. In terms of the will of David MJ Pharoah and
Sophia Catherine Pharoah (born Carolus) dated 28 July 1927 landed property of their
estate be offered to Gert Pharoah of Paternoster for 150 pounds having first option to
purchase subject to conditions: fideicommisum and on his death it goes to his sons
Subsequently other lots of the Farm Uitkomst were purchased by Gert Pharo from
deed of Transfer T 6704/1941 and Bester Deed of Transfer T 10119/1924 or purchased
by Scalia on behalf of Gert Pharo.
Several of the claimants have stated that they were told by their parents that Gert
received money from his white father and this enabled him to purchase and build boats,
thereby establishing the fishing business. It is alleged that Gerts two children, Pieter
(Piekie) and Joseph (Joey) who inherited the property from Gert after his death in
1942 allegedly re-classified white in the late 1950s, thus formalising the access to
privileges and status that they had begun to accumulate through their fathers lucrative
fishing business.
The deeds indicate that the Vaalplaas portion of the land was transferred to Pikkie and
Joey Pharo in 1948. In 1956 an additional portion No 9 was transferred to them.
(The deed records of this date indicate that both were of the Blanke Groep, thereby
contradicting the claimants assertion that they re-classified after the Population
Registration Act). In 1973 several of the portions were consolidated and transferred
into the Pharo brothers names.
(iii) Dispossession of rights in land
The dispossession of the Vaalplaas community happened over time. The relevant
moment was on the 28 December 1966 when the State President, CR Swart, signed
Proclamation 4 which declared Paternoster (including Vaalplaas) a group area for
white people only. From that day onwards any person classified coloured could no
longer legally live in their family homes, unless employed by the owner or under special
permit. The primary legal instrument for the dispossession of rights in land for the

20

Vaalplaas community was thus the proclamation of the Group Areas Act Proclamation
No.4 in 1967, Government Gazette No 1633 dated 13 January 1967.
In terms of this proclamation an area encompassing the portion known to the
community as Vaalplaas was officially designated a White Group Area. This
proclamation was subsequently amended by Proclamation No.199 in October 1981 to
exclude a small portion of the farm Uitkomst. As noted earlier in this report, this
amendment actually declared a portion of the farm Uitkomst as a coloured area but
did not accommodate the Vaalplaas community.
The overt racism motivating the declaration of Group Areas in Paternoster is clearly
captured in the Report on the Group Areas Hearings held on 20 September 196011.
The report states that geen kleurling n duim grond in Paternoster besit nie en alle
ontwikkeling daar uitsluitlik op Blanke inisiatief teweeg gebring is ( G7/617, pp 7).
At the time of the hearings one of the Pharos gave evidence at the hearings. He stated
that he had approximately 30 coloured workers in his employment, most of whom
were crayfishers. All of these workers lived in 30 volkshuisies wat hy spesiaal vir
hulle laat bou het. Hierdie huisies is nog in n redelik bewoonbare toestand. (pp8).
It should be noted that subsequently in the Court Proceedings, the Pharos did
acknowledge that Oom Awie had built the houses.
The declaration of Group Areas in the village authorised and enabled the Pharo family
to embark on a systematic process of dispossession in the following two decades. It
also enabled them to consolidate their control over the labour of the claimants, the
exploitation of which facilitated the growth of their lucrative fishing business.
This process of dispossession became inextricably linked with, and cannot be separated
from other political and planning processes in the region during this period. In 1986
the local municipality commissioned a Structure Plan for Paternoster. This was
completed the following year. The Structure Plan report indicates that there were 25
dwellings on Vaalplaas in 1987 and states that geeneen van die woonstrukture
word deur die kleurlinge self besit nie, maar word almal, behalwe een, gratis bewoon
deur die onderskeie werknemers soos in diens by die verskillende grondeienaars
11

G7/617 Hoofleer gedateer 11/9/63 - 9/7/65 Paternoster: Inligting oor die instelling van
groepsgebiede in Paternoster.

21

( Brandt et al;1987: 20). At the time of the drafting of the structure plan none of the
Vaalplaas residents had applied to the municipality for housing.
Piekie and Joey Pharos sons inherited their fathers properties and in the 1980s they
consolidated their properties and registered them in the name of two fishing
companies. Pierre Pharo owned the Langklip Visserye and Gert and Andre owned
Buccaneer Visserrye. The claimants report that in 1992 those who worked for
Buccaneer were informed by the Pharo brothers that they were selling their fishing
company and hence would no longer be employing all the fishers. They would be
selling their quota to Paternoster Visserye. The Vaalplaas residents and workers
appear to have responded differently to this news. Some of the workers went to work
for this company. Several of them reported better working conditions and that they
were glad that they were no longer working for the Pharos. A few went to work in
other fishing factories in the area. Several report that it was at this time that they were
told that they would have to find other accommodation. Simultaneously, in 1992, a
Behuisingskommittee had been established in Paternoster by Minister Abie Williams.
The chair person was a Mr Paul Samson who subsequently became a councillor in
1994. One of the claimants, Mr van Wyk, who is married to a Vaaplaas born resident
and who had moved onto Vaalplaas in 1971 said that at this point he realised that if he
no longer had a job with the Pharos Fishing company then his tenancy was insecure
and that he should seek alternative employment and accommodation. He approached
the Behusingskommittee and they helped him get his own house through his new
employer, Paternoster Visserye.
They also invited him to join the housing committee which he did for a period from
approximately 1992 - 1994. During this time a process was begun by the local
Saldanha Bay Municipality, in conjunction with the Behuisingsraad, to assist
Vaalplaas residents in applying for housing off Vaalplaas.
The claimants cite the names of three municipal officials who were instrumental in
organising three public meetings with them during this period namely Mr Veldsman, Mr
Samson and Mr Niewoudt.. Notices were sent out with the children at the junior
school from the council informing them that they should come to a meeting. At these
meetings the officials urged them to apply for housing in the area that had been
designated a Coloured Group Area, Kliprig. The first phase of this housing scheme

22

comprised the huurkoop skema and was allegedly managed by the Housing Board,
not the local municipality. This was followed by the self bou skema. This involved
accessing a R30 000 loan and the government housing subsidy. The third phase
involved the building of RDP houses by the municipality. Most of the claimants are
adamant that they did not want to apply for other housing and that they informed the
officials that they intended to stay on Vaalplaas. They say that Mr Veldsman told them
that if they did not move they would never be able to access the state housing subsidy
and would never get access to other land for housing12.
Pressure was put on the families in different ways, culminating in direct pressure in
1995 when their water on Vaalplaas was cut off, taps wired up and they received water
accounts for their new houses in Kliprig. One couple, Susan and Pieter Coraizin, were
adamant that they did not want to move however the developer actually went ahead
and built their house on the plot allocated to them without them signing the contract
for the loan for this house. They state that they only moved because they became
worried about the debt that they were accumulating with the municipality and because
of the water cut-offs and harassment on Vaalplaas.
At that time community meetings were held by the Municipality and Councillors.
They explained that there were plots available on Kliprig. We said we were not
interested in moving to Kliprig. The Committee threatened us if we did not take the
houses that we would never again qualify for housing subsidies or houses. By that
time our water was cut off on Vaalplaas, refuse was not removed and we had to empty
our own toilets. We were also not informed about procedures and rights. The subcontractor, Denis Greeff continued building the houses, in spite of us refusing to agree
to move. In 1995 we moved to Kliprig. We were forced to move and were threatened
by the municipality ( Pieter Coraizin,2003).
They state that they subsequently only signed the contract on their house about 18
months after they had moved in when Paul Samson came to their home and begged
them to do so.

12

An interview with Mr Veldsman failed to shed any further light on the municipalitys precise
involvement in the housing process. He denied any involvement in pressurising people to move and
indicated that the Housing Board, under the directions of Minister Abie Williams handled this process
but acknowledged that some residents did not appear to have signed contracts for their housing loans.

23

A small number appear to have applied for their RDP houses but several of them state
that they only did this as they felt that they had no choice. Ons wil eintlik nie trek
nie..maar ons het geen keurse gehadhulle wil nie omgee as jy in die bos met jou
kinders sit..dit was n hartseer storie toe jy moet trek
(C Abrahams, 05/03).
The Pharos misled the people from Vaalplaas. We were not correctly informed and
therefore we felt we had no other option but to move from Vaalplaas. The Pharos and
the Municiplaity used different strategies to force us to move. The water was cut off,
and we had to live under the worst hygienic conditions. Neville, my husband had to go
and steal water at night. In 1996 we moved from Vaalplaas, after all the municipal
services were cut ( Naomi Cloete, 2003).
By 1998 all of the Vaalplaas residents with the exception of six households had moved
to the RDP homes that had been allocated to them, anticipating a forced removal if
they did not move. These moves were deeply traumatic for them.
The six households that did not move included the following:
1. Nel and Hennie Kuilders and their 6 children
2. Muriel and Cornelius Bester and their 4 children
3. Selma Brutus and her family including her brother, Hendrik Brutus who was 63
and had lived on Vaalplaas for more than 10 years
4. Aunt Celie and Oom Abie Coraizin, both over 60 and born and lived on Vaalplaas
all their lives
5. Aunt Helen Coraizin who was born there and worked for the Pharos but was over
60 at the time
6. Aunt Gertie Kuilders, whose husband had worked for the Pharos,but was now
deceased. Aunt Gertie was also over 60 and had lived on the farm for more than 10
years.
The Pharo brothers approached both Aunt Helen Coraizin who worked for them and
Aunt Gertie Kuilders and promised that if they moved to Kliprig they would build on
an additional room and would plaster their walls and put in ceilings. The two women
agreed. They both moved in 1999 willingly.

24

The Pharos subsequently built on a room for each of them however they have yet to
complete the renovations. These two residents have indicated that they do not wish to
be part of the land claim.
3.3 Third Criterion: Timely Lodgement of the Vaalplaas Land Claim
During the course of 1997 Ms Selma Brutus alleges that, after seeing an advertisement
for the Land Resititution process in the paper, she contacted the Land Claims
Commission. Mr Don de la Harpe from the Land Claims Commission came to her
home in October 1997, gave her 20 copies of the Claim Forms and explained how the
restitution process worked. The prospective claimants completed their forms,
attaching letters in which they set out their family histories. In November 1997 Ms
Selma Brutus posted their land claim forms in a large envelope. She recalls that the
registered article cost R 17.00 to post as this was a lot of money in those days. She
alleges that she followed up with Mr de la Harpe in December of that year13. It would
appear that it was only in April 1999, when the eviction matter surfaced that the fact
that Selma had apparently posted the documents to the Department of Environmental
Affairs became evident.14
In January 1998 Mr Don De La Harpe from the Land Claims Commission phoned Ms
Selma Brutus and informed her that he would be dealing with their case. Subsequently
the claimants had no contact with the Commission, but assumed that their case was
being considered. Mr de la Harpe has stated subsequently that he can recall the
following aspects of the case:

Selma Brutus established contact with the Commission in October 1996

He took Land Claim Forms to her home in October 1996

He personally undertook a deeds search. Following the deeds search he discussed

the matter with the Commissions legal advisor and decided to refer the matter to
Ms Theunissen at the DLA as he felt that there no grounds for a claim but possibly
a tenure security matter.

13

See Selma Brutuss statement.

Masifundise confirmed on the 09/06/03 that the National Department of Environmental Affairs
Marine and Coastal Management Division received and recorded this postal article at their Cape
Town Office in November 1997 as is claimed by Selma Brutus.
14

25

He can recall a Mr Coenraad Steenkamp phoning the Commission in connection

with the claim in 1998.

He can recall a telephone conversation with Ms Brutus in which she said she had
posted the claim forms and he can understand how she came to be under the
impression that the claim forms had arrived as he said to her that if she posted them
registered mail they must have arrived and be lying under the backlog of claims.

Contact with Mr Steenkamp, an anthropologist previously working at the University of

Witwatersrand has revealed that Mr Steenkamp visited the area in 1997 when he met
Selma and heard about the land claim. He felt strongly about the need to protect the
rights of the claimants and recognised the historical and anthropological value of
Vaalplaas. He subsequently wrote a report on the matter to the Commission which he
emailed to Mr Don de la Harpe. Mr Steenkamp is now living in the United States and
does not have a copy of this report in South Africa. There is no record of the report
within the Commission, only Mr de la Harpes recollection that he did receive a phone
call from Mr Steenkamp regarding the matter in 1998.
As early as May 1998 the Pharos applied to the South African National Monuments
Council to have the houses on Vaalplaas demolished15. They received a permit to
demolish certain structures in November 1998 but this permit was only valid for one
year and the demolition had to take place during this prescribed period.
Notices to vacate their homes were sent by the Pharos to the four remaining families
in February 1999. It was shortly after this that Mr Hendrik Brutus (over 60 years and
who had lived on Vaalplaas longer than 10 years) moved to the RDP house allocated to
him by the municipality in November 1998.
The other residents refused to move despite having no toilet facilities and their water
had been cut off. On the 18th June 1999 the Pharos sent a Notice to the Municipality
and to the Department of Land Affairs noting their intention to apply for an eviction
order in terms of Section 9 (2) d) (ii) and (iii) of ESTA (1997) for 14 Vaalplaas
residents. In October 1999 the Pharos applied to the Court for an eviction order and

15

This permission was finally granted in November 1998 but only on several conditions. These
conditions do not appear to have all been met and the permit expired on 13 November 1999. Despite
this the Pharos went ahead and demolished after this date and do not appear to have applied for a
new permit.

26

the date was set for 13 March 2000. Three out of four of the families initially secured
legal representation through Mr
Charles Mc Donald and Mr Jethru however both of these persons withdrew suddenly
without prior notice and the respondents were left without legal assistance. The case
was postponed repeatedly and finally heard in November 2000 at the Vredenburg
Magistrates Court when an eviction order was granted in terms of ESTA 62/67. Mr
Abie and Aunt Celie Coraizen were given life rights.
The Court also agreed that a sum of money would be paid into a Trust account for the
three families in order to ensure that their new accommodation was of a similar size
and standard to their accommodation on Vaalplaas. The following amounts were
agreed upon:
Kuilders: R 36 354.96
Bester:

R 25 016.43

Brutus:

R 50 212. 65

These respondents refused to accept this money and hence it has remained in Mr
Greens trust account.
In December 2002 the Pharos lawyers alleged that these funds had been
misappropriated and they sent a letter to each of the respondents informing them. A
discussion with Mr H Kuilders suggests that he did not fully understand the
implications of the monies or was not aware of them and he has requested that he get
more information regarding the money.
The judgment was confirmed on review in February 2001. Three of the four
households then appointed Mr Green to represent them. Recent questioning of Mr
Hennie Kuilders as to why he and his wife did not have legal representation revealed
that they appeared to not have understood what their rights were, nor the process that
would be followed. Mr Green noted an appeal in March but it was noted out of time.
He subsequently applied for condonation. This was due to be heard on the 18 May
2002 but due to his failure to submit the documents timeously to the Registrar it was
struck off the roll. On the 7th June 2001 Mr Green was informed by the applicants
attorney that the eviction order would be carried out on the 12th June 2001. Mr Green
did not respond and on the 12th June the community allege that the police force,
assisted by army officials arrived and forcibly evicted them. Their belongings were

27

taken out of their homes and subsequently dumped by the sheriff of the courts workers
at their allocated RDP homes. Selma Brutuss goods were stored in Vredenburg as she
had refused the RDP home allocated to her. Their homes were subsequently wired up
and 13 of the homes bulldozed in the following months.
It was a very traumatic event for the claimants. Susan Coraizin recalls:
at 7oclock in morning those families left on Vaalplaas refused to move. The
bulldozers from the brother- in law of Andre Pharo moved in to demolish the houses of
those families still living there.. The wives were left alone at home with their small
children as their husbands were at sea. There were about 70 policemen, they showed
eviction letters. Muriel Bester and her baby were on the ground. They refused to
move, their furniture was carried out of the house by the sheriff of the court and his
men. I ( Susan) and the other women were forced into the back of the police van. The
dilapidated houses were not demolished but others were. I, Susan, stood in front of
Oom Abies and Aunt Celies House and refused to move.
It was really a sad day for us as seven of us women were locked up by the police while
our husbands were at sea (Susan Coraizin, 2003).
During the ESTA hearing in 2000 the issue of the claimants land claim emerged. The
community contacted the Commission in order to ascertain the status of their claim
and were informed that the Commission had no record of them having submitted a
claim. They completed affidavits to state that they had submitted claims and the
Commission agreed to investigate. Ms Brutus has alleged that Mr Don de la Harpe
acknowledged that he had contact with them in January 1998 and stated that he
assumed that the claims were in the backlog awaiting processing however this has yet
to be confirmed. In her evidence in Court Ms Brutus refers to Mr Ben Solomons as
the official with whom she had been liaising. The magistrate hearing the case
instructed the Clerk of the Court to contact the Commission in order to ascertain the
status of the land claim and in his judgment states: Op 13 Oktober 2000 reageer die
Kommissie op die Herstel van Grondregte onder andere soos volg. Howel hy die
vertraging van enige potensiele ontwikkeling betreur, stappe gedoen word op die eis
op te spoor. The magistrate continues dit bly vir die Hof snaaks dat in die lig van
die erns van die aangeleentheid en in die lig van die tydsverloop, dat die Grondeise

28

Kantoor basies niks gedoen het om aan te dui dat hulle ernstig is on hierdie eis te
hanteer nie (Hof Uitspraak, 2000:1067).
Subsequently the claimants had several meetings with the Commission and were under
the impression that their claim had been re-lodged and that they were awaiting
judgment. In December 2001 they were told by Ben Solomons that a judgment was
imminent. Masifundise Programme Manager was also told this in June 2002 when she
contacted the Commission. Subsequently in November 2002 they received notification
that their application has been dismissed on procedural grounds.16 In the interim the
land owner has continued to develop the land.
On the 12 th December the Chief Commissioner Wallace Mgoqi informed the Vaalplaas
community, in a letter to Mr Green, that the lodgement of the claim would be
condoned but indicated that the Commission did not believe that the claim has merit
within the framework of the restitution legislation. It was proposed that the
Commission approach the Minister for special measures to address the situation in
terms of Section 6 2 (b). The Restitution Act makes provision for this in specific
circumstances.

16

It would appear that the Commission eroneously followed up with the provincial dept. of
Environmental Affairs and not DEAT. DEAT has subsequently confirmed receipt of this postal article.

29

Fourth Criterion: No just and equitable compensation was received

The claimants were not compensated for their dispossession by the Group Areas
machinery. They were never expropriated and compensated under the Group Areas
Act. Instead their beneficiary ownership of the land was systematically undermined
and the authorisation with the authorisation of the Group Areas Act.
As noted in the discussion above, although the Pharos indicated that they would
compensate the Vaalplaas residents for their move to Kliprig in 1995 by building on
additional rooms this did not happen with the exception of two households, that of
Aunt Helen Coraizin and Aunt Gertie Kuilders. The respondents in the ESTA matter
have not accepted compensation as they refused the monies that were offered and
apparently were paid into their legal representatives Trust Fund.
4. Current Developments and Restitutionary Preferences
The 34 households that comprise the Vaalplaas community now live scattered from one
another. Selma Brutus lived in a caravan in the garden of another Paternoster resident
for many months and is now living in a wooden structure on the same premises. Her
brother, together with three other claimants, lives in Hopland - the last phase in the
RDP housing scheme. The only two Vaalplaas residents who received life rights to
remain on the property through the ESTA judgement, Cecelia Coraizin and Abie
Coraizin continue to live there but are harassed by the developers and builders on a
daily basis. At the beginning of October Andre Pharo and his wife visited them on a
Sunday and told them that they wanted them to move to another house on the property
and that they would be building a new house for them. The Coraizins informed the
Pharos that they did not wish to leave their home. Mr Pharo implied that they might
be forced to do so.
Although most of the families live in Kliprig, they also feel the distance between them
and report that they can no longer rely on one another to the same extent. Several of
the claimants express great distress at the distance from the sea and the impact that this
has had on them financially, psychologically and spiritually. The fishers can no longer
look out of their front doors to assess the conditions for fishing, nor can they merely

30

put their nets around their shoulders and step down to their boats. Their boats lie on
the beach, vulnerable to damage. They have to hire a bakkie to carry their motors
down to the beach.
Three of the fishers have had to seek employment elsewhere and are now working on
fishing boats up the East Coast, returning home for three to four days a month only.
The move has impacted on the group psychologically in many ways. One claimant
reported how her whole family used to have a ritual walk along the beach every
morning and now they no longer do this and she feels dislocated and unsettled as a
result. Several claimants commented that they feel very hemmed in by the building of
very large holiday homes in front of them that block their view of the sea. Their
connection with the sea is a very deep, soulful one and their distance from it is very
deeply felt. They are also watching with increasing distress as they see the
construction taking place on the empty plots on Vaalplaas and feel very angry that the
Pharos have been allowed to continue with their development scheme. Their
frustration is exacerbated by the fact that many of the fishers who used to have access
to the sea have now, through the new fishing rights process, been denied access to
harvest several species or where they have been allocated quotas, they have been given
a small, unsustainable quota.
The impact of the forced removals from Vaalplaas over the past decade on the
Vaalplaas residents has differed across families and individuals, mediated by a number
of factors such as age, experience of working with the Pharos and access to other
opportunities. Although they all refer to the community of Vaalplaas and their lives
there as one happy family they are certainly no longer living as a community of
claimants. A small group of committed community members has continued to lead the
land claims process and to liaise with Masifundise however some claimants do not
attend meetings and the group does not meet regularly on its own unless Masifundise
requests a particular meeting. The claimants do not express a uniform response to the
process of the land claim and the strategies that they should adopt in furthering their
claim.
However, what is common amongst the group is that they long to return to Vaalplaas
and express their hope that they will be able to do so, returning to occupancy of an
individual plot. In the interviews conducted with representatives from each household

31

all but one respondent said that they would move back if they were given the
opportunity.
Some residents expressed uncertainty about the viability of building new houses on
Vaalplaas in instances where their former home has been demolished and concern
regarding their ability to afford to do so. Those residents upon whose plots new
houses have been built have indicated that they would accept being allocated another
plot on Vaalplaas if they cannot return to the plot held originally by their family. They
do not wish to move to other state land and do not want to discuss this as an option. 17
The possibility of restitution for the Vaalplaas community as a whole in the form of a
community resource or benefit has not been explored fully. The capacity of the group
to manage a process of community planning and to engage in future integrated
development opportunities in the village needs to be strengthened considerably in order
to ensure that any intervention around the claim contributes to the healing of this
community and their full integration into the development opportunities on the West
Coast.
It needs to be noted that the current developments in Paternoster continue to entrench
the racial, cultural and class segregation introduced by the Group Areas Act and
consolidated by the apartheid planning of local municipalities and housing boards.
Paternoster has in the past twenty years become sought after as a popular weekend
getaway and tourist destination. The original small whitewashed fisher cottages have
given way to large holiday houses built in the same white washed thatched tradition.
The community is now starkly divided between the wealthy, palatial homes of absentee
white landowners on prime properties along the beach front and the small, over
crowded homes of the coloured and black fishing community further away from the
sea.
In Kliprig, where some of the coloured residents do live on plots with magnificent
views overlooking the sea a disturbing development has been observed. Wealthy nonresident holiday makers are beginning to purchase the RDP houses with sea views from
impoverished fishers who are no longer able to keep up with their rent and service
charges, quickly replacing the characteristic matchbox homes with new holiday
houses.
17

There are two erven adjacent to Vaalplaas that are held by the State. Portion 23/17 is held by the
National Housing Board and Portion 23/22 is held by Dept. Beplanning: Plaaslike Regering and
Behuising in Cape Town. The precise size of this land has yet to be ascertained.

32

Those fishers living in the RDP homes immediately behind these new, often double
story holiday homes have expressed a feeling of being surrounded and hemmed in and
that their connection with the sea, the source of their economic, social, cultural and
psychological identities is threatened.
Conclusion
This report presents an overview of key issues pertaining to the claim for restitution of
land rights to the Vaalplaas community. Towards this end it attempts to present the
information required in order to ascertain whether the criteria for Section Two of the
Restitution Act are satisfied. It is clear that the claimants were long-term beneficial
rights holders on Vaalplaas and that their rights to this land had evolved through a
complex set of overlapping and at times seemingly contradictory social relations. At
times granted the status of possessory title holders or property owners, at times treated
like independent contractors, their ancestors were also gradually drawn into
employment relations with the Pharos with whom they had grown up as playmates,
relatives and friends.
What is very clear is that their labour, and the particularly harsh way in which this was
exploited, contributed towards the development of the Pharos lucrative fishing
industry in Paternoster. The Group Areas Act of 1966 provided the means whereby the
Pharos were able to systematically dispossess the Vaalplaas community of their rights
to this land over the following forty years. The operation of a racist system of housing
provision and local government planning further consolidated this dispossession.
The continued marginalisation of rural communities following the introduction of a
new land reform policy is visible through the communitys partial understanding of the
Land Restitution application process, their failure to follow up and confirm their
application, their nave trust in the officials handling their case and then their difficulty
in accessing adequate legal representation. The fact that the statutory Integrated
Development Planning process at local government level failed to respond to the crisis
at Vaalplaas in 2001 and has subsequently not even begun to explore how this very
divided town could begin to address its apartheid history is further evidence of the fact
that the Vaalplaas residents have suffered a series of injustices at many levels - they
have been failed by government at national, provincial and local level.

33

Not only have their rights in land not been addressed, but their rights to their
traditional livelihoods as fisher people have systematically been further eroded through
the imposition of a fishing rights policy that limits access to the sea for small-scale,
artisanal fishers.
Although this research has provided some information on the current socio-economic
status of claimants, a more detailed understanding of current local economic
development and Integrated Development Planning processes is necessary so that any
discussions on viable settlements and alternatives can be had within this context. This
process of research has led to discussions with the Saldanha Bay Municipality. The
relatively new Municipal Manager has emphasised the municipalitys role in, and
commitment to promoting participation of the Vaalplaas residents in the Integrated
Development Planning (IDP) processes in future. A critical component of any future
interventions will be the need to enhance the capacity of the claimant group to engage
actively in community driven planning activities so that they can become more fully
involved in the livelihood and development opportunities within Paternoster.

34

References
Brandt, Crous Steyn and Burger 1987 Paternoster Structure Plan. Vredenburg.
Court Papers 2000 Case No: 3381/99 In the Magistrates Court for the District of
Laaiplek. Pharos Property CC and Rojega vs Henry Kuilders and 11 others.
Court Papers 2001 Land Claims Court 2001 Case No: LCC 34/2001 In the Randburg
Land Claims Court.
Dewar, D and Andrews, P 1982 Paternoster: Group Areas Hearing: A Technical
Evaluation of the Issues. UPRU. Cape Town.
G7/617: Inligting oor die instelling van groepsgebiede in Paternoster.
National Archives, Pretoria.
KAB 1/HFD Vol 7/1/4 Crown Lands: Leases: Applications. Hoedklip. Gert Pharo
- Paternoster. Cape Town Archives Repository, Cape Town .
House of Assembly 1882 Report of the Select Committee on Fishing Leases. Cape
Of Good Hope. Cape Town.
National Monuments Council 1998 Correspondence from Pharos Fisheries. Cape
Town Application Number: 60/98/09/005/20.
Republic of South Africa Government Gazette 1967 Proclamation No 4, 1967
Declaration of Group Areas in terms of the Group Areas Act. 1966, at Paternoster,
District of Vredenburg, Province of the Cape Of Good Hope.
Republic of South Africa Government Gazette 1981 Proclamation No 199, 1981
Amendment of Proclamations 4 and 5 in terms of the Group Areas Act. 1966, at
Paternoster, District of Vredenburg, Province of the Cape Of Good Hope.
Urban Dynamics 2000 Paternoster Ontwikkelingsplan. Cape Town.

35

Van Sittert, L 1992 The state, labour and capital in the St Helena Bay Fisheries
1856 - 1956. Unpublished PH.D thesis, University of Cape Town. Cape Town.
Van Sittert, L 2003 Paternoster Maritime History. Unpublished document. Cape
Town.

36

PART TWO
Annexure One: Group Area Proclamations
Proclamation No. 4 of 1967
Amendment No. 199 of 1989

Annexure Two: List of Claimant Households

1. John and Mabel Bailey
2. Owen and Mirinda Bailey
3. Sarah and Nancy Afrikaner
4. Dick Clarke
5. Denzel and Pauline Coraizin
6. Henry and Coleen Visagie
7. Carl and Kathy Clarke
8. Lizzie Losper
9. Hennie and Nellie Kuilders
10. Lena Ketello
11. Edwin and Mathilda Clarke
12. John and Natalie van der Heever
13. Walter and Gertrude Coraizin
14. Preston and Edwina Cordon
15. Cornelius and Sally van Wyk
16. Johnny and Aletta Kuilders
17. Japie and Laurita Kasper
18. Caroline Abrahams
19. Cornelia and Ester Coraizin
20. Brutus family {Selma,Patricia,Dominic,Hendrik, Duane and Troy}
21. Almo Kuilders
22. Celie and Abraham Coraizin
23. Pieter and Susan Coraizin
24. Cornelia and John Markus
25. Willyboy and Denise Bester
26. Sally and Getrude Kuilders
27. Naomi and Neville Cloete
28. Helen and Sophia Coraizin
29. Rudolph Coraizin
30. Julie and Rosina Afrika
31. Cornelius and Muriel Bester
32. Joseph and Louisa Bailey (added subsequently through Masifundise research
process)
33. Freddie Pharo
34. One other deceased
List of the claimants from Vaalplaas interviewed

37

John and Mabel Bailey

Owen and Mirinda Bailey
Sarah and Nancy Afrikaner
Dick Clarke
Denzel and Pauline Coraizin
Henry and Coleen Visagie
Carl and Kathy Clarke
Lizzie Losper
Hennie and Nellie Kuilders
Lena Ketello
Edwin and Mathilda Clarke
John and Natalie van der Heever
Walter and Gertrude Coraizin
Preston and Edwina Cordon
Cornelius and Sally van Wyk
Johnny and Aletta Kuilders
Japie and Laurita Kasper
Caroline Abrahams
Cornelia and Ester Coraizin
Selma Brutus
Hendrik Brutus
Almo Kuilders
Celie and Abraham Coraizin
Pieter and Susan Coraizin
Cornelia and John Markus
Willyboy and Denise Bester
Sally and Getruide Kuilders
Naomi and Neville Cloete
Helen and Sophia Coraizin
Rudolph Coraizin
Julie and Rosina Afrika
Cornelius and Muriel Bester
Joseph and Louisa Bailey
Reginald and Daphne Coraizin

Meetings held with other key informants:

38

Mr Louis Scheepers (Municipal manager, Saldanha Bay Municipality), Ms Ayanda

Canca ( Director: Economic and Social Affairs: Saldanha Bay), Mr K Daniels, former
Director of Planning, Mr J Veldsman, Housing Official, Saldanha Bay Municipality
Anna Johanna Visser {A woman who has sublet to Selma}
Mr Pharo (Mirinda Baileys father who is related to the Pharos).
Mr Paul Andrews - architect who co-authored report on Group Areas Plans in 1982.
Telephonic and email contact with Mr Chris Snelling, Manager, Western Cape Heritage
Resources Agency
Meetings with Jenny Williams - Lawyer for the CRLR
Telephonic contact with Coenraad Steenkamp - anthropologist

39

Annexure Three: Diagrams and Maps:

GP 1740/2000
Structure Plan Nr. 4.030.01
Structure Plan Nr 4.030.02
Annexure 4: Research Methodology
Masifundise Development Organisation is a non-governmental organisation working
with rural and coastal communities in the Western Cape. In 1999 the organisation
began working with traditional fishers in Paternoster. The focus of the organisations
work at this stage was to support the fishers in organising in order to access marine
resources under the new fishing regime. Through this work the organisation became
aware of the Vaalplaas claimants and their frustration at the slow progress of their land
claim. In June 2002 the organisation had telephonic contact with the Commission and
also wrote to the Chief Commissioner at the request of the claimants in order to
ascertain what progress had been made. No response was received. In November
2002 the organisation was requested to intervene when two of the claimants received
notice to vacate their house in terms of a prior ESTA ruling in 2001. Since this time
the organisation has been directly involved in assisting the community to advocate for
the speedy resolution of this case and, at the request of both the Commission on the
Restitution of Land Rights and the Vaalplaas community, to gather the necessary
background information required in order that the Commission can make an
application to the Minister of Land Affairs in terms of Section 6 2 (b). Throughout the
process Masifundise has clearly stated its objective of supporting the community in this
process with a view to promoting fisher and coastal communities access to the land
and marine resources to which they have had customary rights.
The research methodology has combined a transect walk to identify existing houses
and plots, four focus group interviews, 28 individual interviews using a semi-structured
interview schedule and eight more in-depth, unstructured life stories. A meeting with
the municipal officials and other key informants has also been conducted. Secondary
literature including the Court Records from the ESTA Judgement and the 1987
Municipal Structure Plan for the area has also been consulted. Information pertaining
to the application by the Pharos for permission to demolish the houses on Vaalplaas

40

was accessed at the SAHRA. The researcher has entered into correspondence with the
Western Cape Heritage Resources Agency regarding the future of the remaining houses
on Vaalplaas.
The research has aimed to maximise the participatory nature of the research process,
using several community workshops in order to develop the research plan and jointly
agree on the process. A community land claims committee was elected to drive the
process and to assist the Masifundise team with specific tasks. Masifundise employed
a contract researcher, Mr Neil Matthys, to undertake the bulk of the research tasks and
he was assisted by three staff members. Mr Matthys spent a period of three weeks
living with one of the land claimants in Paternoster. This initial information was
gathered over a period of approximately 12 weeks, from mid March to mid May 2003.
One of the most glaring weaknesses of this first phase was the fact that the research
team used the claimants own definitions of who was in the claim and who was
out(See Annexure Two for a list of claimant households). This list does not
consistently define claimants in terms of their individual claims. In general it focuses
on a households claim, defined by the group of persons who were living together in a
particular dwelling on Vaalplaas in 1990. Subsequently additional information was
gathered from the claimants by the Masifundise staff and compiled into this report.

41