One of the most replicated findings of the procedural justice literature is that people
who receive unfavorable outcomes are more likely to believe that the process was nonetheless
legitimate if they thought that it was fair. Using interviews of 150 people compensated
through the South African land restitution program, this article examines whether
these findings apply in the transitional justice context where it is often unclear who the
winners and losers are. The question explored is: When all outcomes are unfavorable or
incomplete, how do people make fairness assessments? The central observation was that
the ability of respondents and land restitution commission officials to sustain a conversation
with each other had the greatest effect on whether respondents believed that the land
restitution process was fair. The study also contributes to the existing literature by
exploring the institutional arrangements and resources necessary to facilitate communication
and to overcome any communication breakdowns encountered.