South Africa Case Law

A Re Shomeng Holdings Proprietary Limited and Another v Sibeko and Others (LCC 02/2024)

A Re Shomeng Holdings Proprietary Limited and Another v Sibeko and Others (LCC 02/2024) [2024] ZALCC 7 (19 February 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 02/2024

Judge

Cowen

The Court found that the applicants had established urgency due to the halt in mining operations and the safety directive prohibiting blasting near occupiers' homes. The applicants demonstrated that failure to relocate the respondent families would result in mine closure, job losses, and economic hardship. While the respondent families had agreed to permanent relocation, the temporary relocation was necessitated by construction delays. The Court held that the requirements for interim relief under section 15 of ESTA and general principles for urgent interdicts were satisfied: there was imminen…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Urgent Interim Relief
• Relocation Of Occupiers
• Mining Rights
• Consultation And Resettlement
• Balance Of Convenience

Du Plessis and Another v Kriel N.O and Others (LCC88/2022)

Du Plessis and Another v Kriel N.O and Others (LCC88/2022) [2023] ZALCC 43; [2024] 1 All SA 702 (LCC) (14 December 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC88/2022

Judges

Cowen, Ncube, Flatela

The Land Claims Court upheld a relocation order under ESTA, holding that section 8 can apply to relocations, but the appellants failed to prove long-term occupier protection.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Relocation Of Occupiers
• Mandatory Interdict
• Security Of Tenure
• Statutory Interpretation
• Extension-of-security-of-tenure-act

Pieterse and Others v Drumearn (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC 135/2022 ; 3/2021)

Pieterse and Others v Drumearn (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC 135/2022 ; 3/2021) [2023] ZALCC 13 (19 April 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 135/2022 ; 3/2021

Judges

Flatela, Cowen

The court held that the relocation of the appellant from a house on Blauwkrans Farm, owned by Drumearn (Pty) Ltd, to a house on Helderfontein Farm, owned by Helderfontein Farm (Pty) Ltd, constitutes an eviction under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA). The farms are distinct cadastral units registered to different legal entities, and the Act regulates the relationship between occupiers and owners of the same land. The fact that both entities have common shareholders and operate the farms as a single unit does not alter the legal definition of 'land' for purposes of ESTA. The juris…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction
• Relocation Of Occupiers
• Cadastral Definition Of Land
• Security Of Tenure

Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021)

Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021) [2023] ZALCC 7 (16 March 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC209/2021

Judge

M T Ncube

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to just administrative action and that meaningful engagement with both the receiving community and the occupier respondents was lacking. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, as there was reasonable apprehension of harm, the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and no alternative remedy was available. The relocation was stayed pending the outcome of the review application, and the municipality was ordered to provide comprehensive reports on community engagement, long-term housing plans, inco…

Source excerpt

• Relocation Of Occupiers
• Meaningful Engagement
• Just Administrative Action
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Interim Interdict
• Consultation Requirements

Oranje and Others v Rouxlandia Investments (Pty) Ltd (915/2017; 86/2018)

Oranje and Others v Rouxlandia Investments (Pty) Ltd (915/2017; 86/2018) [2018] ZASCA 183; 2019 (3) SA 108 (SCA) (7 December 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

915/2017; 86/2018

Judges

Maya, Swain, Mathopo, Carelse, Nicholls

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that relocation from one dwelling to another on the same farm does not constitute eviction under ESTA, which only applies to eviction from the land itself. The appellants' right to occupy the manager's house was contractually linked to employment as a manager, which had ended due to medical incapacity. Rouxlandia provided suitable alternative accommodation that met the requirements of ESTA, and the relocation did not infringe the appellants' rights to human dignity or security of tenure. The court found no deficiency in the legislative protection afforded by E…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Security Of Tenure
• Relocation Of Occupiers
• Constitutional Right To Housing
• Final Interdict
• Suitable Alternative Accommodation

Bango and Others v Boschpoort Ondernemings (Pty) Ltd (LCC74/20057)

Bango and Others v Boschpoort Ondernemings (Pty) Ltd (LCC74/20057) [2007] ZALCC 18 (27 July 2007)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC74/20057

Judge

Gildenhuys

The Land Claims Court held that Boschpoort had substantially complied with a relocation order and lifted suspension of the writ of ejectment.

• Relocation Of Occupiers
• Compliance With Court Order
• Writ Of Ejectment
• Execution Procedure
• Relocation-of-occupiers
• Writ-of-ejectment