The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that poultry and eggs destroyed under compulsory animal disease-control measures must be valued as if they were uninfected when compensation is assessed, dismissing an appeal by the Director of Animal Health and the Minister of Agriculture.
Source: ©123branex via
123RFThe South African Poultry Association (Sapa), which supported the litigation as a friend of the court, has welcomed the ruling.
The case followed an avian influenza outbreak at George Moerasrivier Boerdery in May 2021. State veterinary authorities ordered the destruction of infected and exposed birds and eggs to contain the disease. The farmer complied with the order and applied for compensation under the Animal Diseases Act.
The Director of Animal Health twice determined that no compensation was payable, arguing that the birds and eggs had no value because they were infected or exposed to the disease, were likely to die and could not be traded.
In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2026, the SCA dismissed the appeals by a three-to-two majority, upholding the principle that compensation should be assessed using the fair market value of the animals and things as if they had not been infected or exposed.
The matter has been referred back to the Director for reconsideration. The court did not determine a final compensation amount.
Fair market value
Section 19 of the Animal Diseases Act allows owners to apply for compensation when animals or other property are destroyed or disposed of under official disease-control measures.
The SCA majority found that the valuation should be based on the value of the birds and eggs before infection or exposure, rather than their reduced or nil value in their affected condition.
However, the ruling does not mean that farmers are automatically entitled to full market value or replacement costs. The Director must still determine the compensation payable, taking into account the circumstances of each claim and relevant factors under the Act. These include any value returned to the owner, amounts owed to the State and insurance payments.
The judgment also distinguishes between animals destroyed under official control measures and those that died before the measures were imposed. The latter are not covered by the compensation provision.
Sapa supported the farmer's litigation and participated in the appeal as amicus curiae, or friend of the court.
Disease reporting and food security
The judgment recognised the role that compensation can play in encouraging farmers to report disease outbreaks promptly and cooperate with veterinary authorities. The prospect of receiving no compensation could discourage reporting and undermine efforts to contain disease.
“This is an important victory for poultry farmers and everyone who depends on a reliable supply of chicken and eggs,” said Izaak Breitenbach, CEO of Sapa’s Broiler Organisation. “Compulsory culling can remove a farmer’s productive flock in a matter of days. Farmers who comply are helping to protect other farms and the public, and fair compensation recognises that shared benefit.”
“Confidence that compensation will be assessed fairly strengthens our ability to respond quickly to outbreaks,” Breitenbach said. “That matters for animal health, investment, jobs and food security across both the chicken and egg industries.”
Sapa has called for outstanding compensation claims to be addressed fairly and promptly.
The Director of Animal Health has until 19 November 2026 to apply for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court. Alternatively, the Minister and/or the Department of Agriculture may take steps to facilitate compensation in line with the SCA ruling.
