Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Raimondi N.O and Another v Kruger and Others (Reasons) (22271.2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 257 (9 September 2024)
The High Court ordered eviction of occupants from a Gordon’s Bay property, finding no valid sale agreement, no lawful right to remain, and no proven retention lien.
Gruft N.O and Others v Muller and Others (LCC33R/2023) [2024] ZALCC 4 (25 January 2024)
The court confirmed the eviction of the First Respondent as his right of residence was lawfully terminated following his dismissal for gross misconduct, which was confirmed by the CCMA and complied with the requirements of ESTA. However, the Second to Fourth Respondents had resided on the farm continuously since 2007 with the Applicants' knowledge, making them occupiers in their own right under ESTA. Their rights of residence were not individually terminated in accordance with section 8(1) of ESTA, nor were the relevant factors considered. The notices relied upon by the Applicants failed to a…
Source excerpt
Plit v Grimbeek (9985/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 370 (31 May 2022)
The High Court held that the respondent planted a crop without consent and would have failed on the merits; the application had become moot, but costs were awarded to the applicant.
Galloptic Trade and Investments 15 (Proprietary) Limited v Groenewald and Others (46699/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 274 (8 August 2019)
The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondents are unlawful occupiers under PIE. The respondents' occupation was with the original permission, knowledge, and consent of the applicant, and the evidence presented by the respondents, including the agreement of sale and power of attorney, was not so far-fetched as to be rejected on the papers. Material disputes of fact existed regarding the nature and termination of the respondents' right to occupy, which could not be resolved in motion proceedings. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence…
Source excerpt
Yarona Game & Guest Farms (Pty) Ltd v Mashinini and Others (LCC 30R/2017) [2017] ZALCC 31 (30 November 2017)
The court found that the Respondents' rights of residence did not arise solely from employment but from long-standing consent, as evidenced by continuous and open residence on the farm for decades. The Applicant failed to rebut the presumption of consent and did not comply with the procedural fairness requirements of ESTA, specifically by not affording the Respondents an effective opportunity to make representations prior to termination. The allegations of misconduct were unproven and general. The hardship to the Respondents, who would be deprived of their only home without alternative accomm…
Source excerpt
Minister of Human Settlements, Western Cape Provincial Government v Penhill Residents Small Farmers Co-operative Ltd and Others (429/2015) [2016] ZASCA 99 (3 June 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondents did not have actual consent to occupy the entire Penhill Farms property. The evidence showed that negotiations and draft leases were aimed at regularizing existing occupation, not granting rights to the whole property. There was no unequivocal conduct by the Provincial Government indicating consent to occupation of the entire land. The respondents' claim of legitimate expectation was also rejected, as the government's decision to use unoccupied land for other purposes did not constitute administrative action affecting their rights. The co…
Source excerpt
Erasmus v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (51032/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 330 (22 September 2009)
The High Court dismissed an eviction application after finding the occupants likely fell under ESTA, not PIE, and that the matter should have been brought under ESTA.
Malelane Edms Bpk v Godfrey and Another (12323/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 250; [2008] 2 All SA 97 (T) (26 October 2007)
The High Court held that the respondents were occupiers under ESTA, so the court lacked jurisdiction. The eviction application was struck from the roll with costs.
Explore more
