South Africa Case Law

Church of Holly Ghost v Mokoena (2025/128948)

Church of Holly Ghost v Mokoena (2025/128948) [2025] ZALCC 26 (17 June 2025)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

2025/128948

Judge

Ncube

The court found that the Church failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds raised were either unsupported by evidence or irrelevant to the real issue, which was whether Mr Mokoena qualifies as an occupier under ESTA. The court relied on the Constitutional Court’s purposive interpretation in Klaase, rejecting the Church’s argument that section 6(5) requires established practice. The Church did not provide documentary proof of Mr Mokoena’s expulsion or challenge the costs order on a valid basis. Mr Mokoena’s application for immediate enforcement was dismissed as…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Definition Of Occupier
• Burial Rights Under Esta
• Costs Award
• Adducing Further Evidence

Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd v Adriaan Johannes Roux and Others (641/2023)

Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd v Adriaan Johannes Roux and Others (641/2023) [2024] ZASCA 83; 2024 (5) SA 384 (SCA) (31 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

641/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Meyer, Matojane, Coppin, Mbhele

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents did not qualify as 'occupiers' under ESTA, as there was no evidence of commercial farming or employment of non-family members on the property. The Land Claims Court erred by relying solely on the probation officer's report to make factual findings about commercial farming, which was not an issue raised in the pleadings or supported by evidence. The report is not evidence and cannot substitute for proper judicial determination. The requirements for eviction under ESTA were met, including lawful termination of residence, notice, and consider…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Eviction Proceedings
• Probation Officer Report
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Goedverwaching Farm (Pty) Ltd v Roux and Others (LCC 129/2022)

Goedverwaching Farm (Pty) Ltd v Roux and Others (LCC 129/2022) [2023] ZALCC 20 (21 June 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 129/2022

Judge

L Flatela

The court found that the respondents were not occupiers as defined by ESTA because their occupation was for commercial farming purposes, which is expressly excluded from ESTA's protection. The applicant's arguments raised a reasonable prospect that another court might reach a different conclusion regarding whether the respondents' activities constituted commercial farming or mere farming. Given the factual and legal disputes, the court determined that the applicant met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Jurisdiction Of Land Claims Court
• Leave To Appeal
• Commercial Farming Exclusion

Droomer NO and Another v Snyders and Others (A336/2019)

Droomer NO and Another v Snyders and Others (A336/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 72 (4 August 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A336/2019

Judges

Binns-Ward, Cloete, Slingers

The Full Court held that the High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted merely by the respondents' assertion that they were 'occupiers' under ESTA. The determination of whether the respondents qualified as 'occupiers' was a factual issue integral to the merits and could not be decided as a preliminary jurisdictional objection. The court a quo erred by upholding the objection without making findings on whether the respondents met all elements of the 'occupier' definition, including consent and income. The appeal was upheld, the jurisdictional objection was disallowed, and the matter was remitted…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Definition Of Occupier
• Separation Of Issues

Muchanyise v Magistrate, Groblersdal and Others (2882/2019)

Muchanyise v Magistrate, Groblersdal and Others (2882/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 10 (23 January 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2882/2019

Judges

M S Mphahlele, EM Makgoba

The High Court reviewed and set aside an eviction order after finding that ESTA, not PIE, governed the applicant’s occupation of the land.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Eviction Procedure
• Definition Of Occupier
• Statutory Interpretation
• Esta

Colchester Zoo SA Properties (Pty) Limited v Mdakane and Others (1108/2017)

Colchester Zoo SA Properties (Pty) Limited v Mdakane and Others (1108/2017) [2018] ZASCA 188 (13 December 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1108/2017

Judges

Maya, Mathopo, Van der Merwe, Makgoka, Carelse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the second respondent, Mr Maduna, did not meet the definition of 'occupier' under ESTA. Although he regarded the farm as his ancestral home and had family ties, his lengthy and unexplained absences from the farm, particularly between 2014 and 2016, demonstrated a lack of actual physical presence and intention to return on a permanent basis. The Court distinguished the facts from Mathebula v Harry, where the applicants maintained regular presence and intention to return. Consequently, the Land Claims Court erred in declaring the second respondent an occupi…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Eviction Proceedings
• Land Reform Labour Tenants Act

Stargrow (Pty) Ltd v Ockhuis and Others (LCC62/2017, 199/2016)

Stargrow (Pty) Ltd v Ockhuis and Others (LCC62/2017, 199/2016) [2017] ZALCC 17; 2018 (1) SA 298 (LCC) (19 April 2017)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC62/2017

Judges

Barnes, Molefe

The Land Claims Court held that the definition of 'occupier' under ESTA must be interpreted with reference to the individual's income, not the combined income of spouses. The Court rejected the contrary approach in Halle v Downs as inconsistent with Constitutional Court authority. The appellant failed to provide prima facie evidence that the second respondent's income exceeded the prescribed threshold, relying incorrectly on joint income. The onus to prove all requirements for eviction under ESTA rests with the applicant throughout. As the appellant did not establish that the second responden…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Burden Of Proof
• Eviction Proceedings
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Security Of Tenure

Breytenbach N.O. and Another v Mokoena and Others (46R/2016)

Breytenbach N.O. and Another v Mokoena and Others (46R/2016) [2016] ZALCC 25 (27 September 2016)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

46R/2016

Judge

Barnes

The Land Claims Court held that the respondents, having lived openly on the farm and with the knowledge of the owners, qualify as 'occupiers' under ESTA in their own right, following the Constitutional Court's decision in Klaase. The previous interpretative distinction between 'occupiers' and 'residents' is no longer applicable. The applicants failed to lawfully and fairly terminate the respondents' right of residence as required by ESTA, relying instead on the now-defunct distinction. As a result, the respondents' right of residence was not validly terminated, and the eviction order granted…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Termination Of Right Of Residence
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Magistrates Court Review

Blum N.O. v Seshoka and Others (40777/2014)

Blum N.O. v Seshoka and Others (40777/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 265 (4 May 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40777/2014

Judge

J W Louw

The respondent failed to prove that she qualifies as an occupier under ESTA, as she did not rebut evidence that she uses the property mainly for commercial purposes and likely earns more than the prescribed income threshold. Her affidavits did not address the applicant's evidence regarding commercial activities or income. Consequently, ESTA does not apply, and the respondent's right to occupy the property was lawfully terminated. The respondent and other occupiers are in unlawful occupation, and the requirements for eviction under PIE have been satisfied.

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Termination Of Right Of Occupation

J & F Le Roux Properties CC and Another v Manisi and Others (17328/13)

J & F Le Roux Properties CC and Another v Manisi and Others (17328/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 28 (4 March 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17328/13

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court held that the first respondent's absence from the cottage was not voluntary or indicative of abandonment, but necessitated by his health and the inability of family members to care for him during the week. The cottage remained his permanent home, where his belongings were kept and to which he returned regularly. The definition of 'residing' under ESTA is not determined by the majority of nights spent at a location, but by the permanence and intention to maintain the premises as one's home. The continued occupation by the first respondent's family members was found to be an incidence…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Eviction Procedure
• Constitutional Rights To Home
• Family Life Rights
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act