South Africa Case Law

Jacobs and Others v Bester and Others (LCC 02R/2023)

Jacobs and Others v Bester and Others (LCC 02R/2023) [2023] ZALCC 2 (7 February 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 02R/2023

Judge

Flatela

The Land Claims Court found that the Magistrate erred in granting the eviction order. The termination of the respondents' right of occupation was not just and equitable as required by ESTA. The Magistrate failed to properly consider all relevant factors, including the respondents' lack of alternative accommodation, the special protection afforded to long-term occupiers, and the impact of eviction on children. The probation officer's report, which recommended against eviction and confirmed the second respondent's permanent rights of residence, was ignored. The applicants did not demonstrate an…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Long Term Occupier Protection
• Right To Housing
• Procedural Fairness
• Children's Rights

Ashanti Wine and Country Estate (Pty) Limited v Paulse and Others (LCC247/2016, LCC248/2016, LCC249/2016, LCC250/2016, LCC254/2016)

Ashanti Wine and Country Estate (Pty) Limited v Paulse and Others (LCC247/2016, LCC248/2016, LCC249/2016, LCC250/2016, LCC254/2016) [2017] ZALCC 4 (20 March 2017)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC247/2016, LCC248/2016, LCC249/2016, LCC250/2016, LCC254/2016

Judges

Poswa-Lerotholi, Y S Meer

The Land Claims Court dismissed five appeals against eviction refusals, finding non-compliance with ESTA section 9(2) and no basis to grant eviction orders.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction Proceedings
• Just And Equitable Termination
• Long Term Occupier Protection
• Family Rights Of Occupiers
• Esta

Halle and Another v Downs (LCC78R/2007)

Halle and Another v Downs (LCC78R/2007) [2008] ZALCC 15 (20 November 2008)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC78R/2007

Judges

Y S Meer, A Gildenhuys

The appellants did not qualify as occupiers under ESTA at the time of the eviction proceedings, as their combined income exceeded the statutory threshold and the first appellant was not an occupier in her own right. Consequently, they were not entitled to protection as long term occupiers under section 8(4) of ESTA. Even if they had qualified, breaches of the lease agreement and the relationship between the parties justified eviction under sections 10(1)(b) and (c) of ESTA. The eviction order should have been granted under PIE, not ESTA, as the appellants were unlawful occupiers. The Land Cla…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Definition Of Occupier
• Long Term Occupier Protection
• Jurisdiction Of Land Claims Court