Pieters and Another v Stemmet and Another (079/2024) [2025] ZASCA 60; [2025] 3 All SA 304 (SCA) (14 May 2025)

Pieters and Another v Stemmet and Another (079/2024) [2025] ZASCA 60; [2025] 3 All SA 304 (SCA) (14 May 2025)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the property, although situated within a township, is designated for agricultural purposes by virtue of its 'rural' zoning under the City of Cape Town's Development Management Scheme. This designation brings the property within the ambit of ESTA, as contemplated by section 2(1)(a) of the Act. The Court rejected the Land Claims Court's distinction between 'rural' and 'agricultural' zoning, finding it artificial and unsupported by the relevant planning instruments. The appellants, having resided on the property with the respondents' knowledge and consent since 1988 and meeting the income threshold, qualify as 'occupiers' under ESTA. Consequently, the...

Citation
[2025] ZASCA 60
Parties
Appellant: Jacob Pieters; Appellant: Catherina Pieters; Respondent: Stephan Corne Stemmet; Respondent: Peter Gabriel Stemmet
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Case Number
079/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; appellants entitled to ESTA protections.
Judges
Meyer, Matojane, Unterhalter, Keightley, Windell
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Land Zoning, Eviction, Constitutional Right to Housing
Land and Property Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Land Zoning Eviction Constitutional Right to Housing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Pieters

Appellant

Catherina Pieters

Appellant

Stephan Corne Stemmet

Respondent

Peter Gabriel Stemmet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property occupied by the appellants falls within the ambit of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
  2. 2 Whether land zoned as 'rural' constitutes land designated for agricultural purposes under ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants qualify as 'occupiers' protected by ESTA despite the property's location within a township.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the property, although situated within a township, is designated for agricultural purposes by virtue of its 'rural' zoning under the City of Cape Town's Development Management Scheme. This designation brings the property within the ambit of ESTA, as contemplated by section 2(1)(a) of the Act. The Court rejected the Land Claims Court's distinction between 'rural' and 'agricultural' zoning, finding it artificial and unsupported by the relevant planning instruments. The appellants, having resided on the property with the respondents' knowledge and consent since 1988 and meeting the income threshold, qualify as 'occupiers' under ESTA. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; appellants entitled to ESTA protections.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Land Claims Court is set aside and replaced with an order that the property is subject to ESTA.