Boplaas Landgoed 1743 (Pty) Ltd and Another v van der Hanse and Others (LCC47/2023 ; LCC48/2023) [2024] ZALCC 5 (29 January 2024)
The court found that the requirements for eviction under section 9 of ESTA were satisfied: the respondents' right of residence was lawfully terminated, notices were properly served, and the respondents did not vacate within the notice period. The respondents had no reasonable expectation of continued residence, and their occupation prejudiced the appellants, who needed the housing for employees. The court considered the respondents' long-term residence and the hardship of eviction but noted that they were registered for municipal housing and that emergency accommodation was available. The court held that eviction would be just and equitable if linked to the provision of alternative...
- Citation
- [2024] ZALCC 5
- Parties
- Appellant: Boplaas Landgoed 1743 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Frans Jacobus van der Merwe; Respondent: Harold van der Hanse; Respondent: Ellenette van der Hanse; Respondent: All other persons residing with or under the first to second respondents in the premises on Du Cap Farm, Paarl; Respondent: Drakenstein Municipality; Respondent: Provincial Director of the Department of Land and Rural Development; Respondent: Sara Fortuin; Respondent: Hendrik Terblanche
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 January 2024
- Case Number
- LCC47/2023 ; LCC48/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Refusal of Eviction Applications
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; eviction order granted subject to provision of alternative accommodation.
- Judges
- Y S Meer, B Spilg
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Under Esta, Just and Equitable Eviction, Alternative Accommodation, Municipal Housing Obligation, Termination of Right of Residence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Boplaas Landgoed 1743 (Pty) Ltd
Appellant
Frans Jacobus van der Merwe
Appellant
Harold van der Hanse
Respondent
Ellenette van der Hanse
Respondent
All other persons residing with or under the first to second respondents in the premises on Du Cap Farm, Paarl
Respondent
Drakenstein Municipality
Respondent
Provincial Director of the Department of Land and Rural Development
Respondent
Sara Fortuin
Respondent
Hendrik Terblanche
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Refusal of Eviction Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the requirements for eviction under section 9 of ESTA were met.
- 2 Whether it is just and equitable to evict the respondents from the farm.
- 3 Whether suitable alternative accommodation is available for the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the requirements for eviction under section 9 of ESTA were satisfied: the respondents' right of residence was lawfully terminated, notices were properly served, and the respondents did not vacate within the notice period. The respondents had no reasonable expectation of continued residence, and their occupation prejudiced the appellants, who needed the housing for employees. The court considered the respondents' long-term residence and the hardship of eviction but noted that they were registered for municipal housing and that emergency accommodation was available. The court held that eviction would be just and equitable if linked to the provision of alternative...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; eviction order granted subject to provision of alternative accommodation.
Orders
- The respondents shall vacate the dwellings they occupy on the appellants' farm by no later than 28 February 2025.
- If the respondents fail to vacate by 28 February 2025, the Sheriff is authorized to secure their eviction on 1 March 2025.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment