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
Burger and Others v Schrader and Others (LANC01R/2025) [2025] ZALCC 14 (20 March 2025)
Automatic review of an ESTA eviction order. The Land Claims Court confirmed the eviction in part, found section 11 applied, and ordered municipal emergency housing.
Resident of Paradise Park Listed on Annexure Marked 'Z' v Magna Business Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (19610/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 337 (20 November 2023)
The court found that the applicants are entitled to interim relief preventing Magna from disconnecting electricity and imposing overly restrictive visitor rules, pending expedited hearing. The restrictions initially imposed by Magna were overbroad and failed to accommodate constitutional rights to healthcare and family life. The court accepted Magna's revised proposal, which allows day visitors with 24 hours' notice, limited sleepovers for immediate family, and access for medical staff and carers. The application against Eskom was frivolous and manifestly inappropriate, as Eskom was not respo…
Source excerpt
Applewaite Farm (Pty) Ltd v Jaars and Others (LCC 120/2019) [2023] ZALCC 17 (26 May 2023)
The Land Claims Court refused eviction under ESTA but ordered the first to eighth respondents to relocate from Meadows 8 to Village 27 as just and equitable.
Napier Grundstucks GMBH and Others v Fredericks and Others (LCC68/2022) [2022] ZALCC 42 (23 December 2022)
The Court held that the respondents' right to reside on the farm was not lawfully terminated as family members under section 6(2)(d) of ESTA. The termination letter referenced only house number 7 and employment-based residence, not their right to reside with their parents in Flat 8B. The appellants did not take steps to terminate the parents' rights as occupiers, nor did they address the respondents' family-based residence. The Magistrate correctly applied the Hattingh decision, recognizing the right to family life and balancing it against the landowner's interests. The absence of suitable al…
Source excerpt
First Reality (Krugersdorp) (Pty) Ltd v G Mitchell and others (LCC 123/2018) [2021] ZALCC 6 (13 April 2021)
The Land Claims Court dismissed an eviction application under ESTA because the applicant failed to prove valid termination of residence and procedural compliance.
Khumalo and Others v Botha and Others (LCC 161/2020) [2021] ZALCC 3 (25 March 2021)
The court held that the eviction, house demolition, cattle impoundment, and deprivation of land use on Dunbar farm were unlawful under ESTA.
Ewree NO and Others v Jacobs and Others (LCC32R/2018, 03/2016) [2018] ZALCC 16 (3 September 2018)
The Court found that the eviction order was granted without proper consideration of the requirements under ESTA, specifically sections 8(1) and 9(2) regarding the termination of rights of residence for the Second to Fourth Respondents, whose rights derived from consent and not from the First Respondent's employment. The mandatory factors for termination and eviction were not addressed. Furthermore, the right to family life under section 6(2)(d) of ESTA, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Hattingh and Others v Juta, was not properly considered. There was no evidence that the continu…
Source excerpt
Erwee N.O and Others v Davids and Others (LCC63/18) [2018] ZALCC 33 (27 June 2018)
Land Claims Court appeal on ESTA eviction dismissed after rejecting a defective-affidavit point in limine and finding the occupiers’ residence rights were not lawfully terminated.
Goedverdiend Plase Pty Ltd v Andrews and Another (LCC232/2017) [2018] ZALCC 24 (15 June 2018)
The court found that the Second Respondent and her children are occupiers under ESTA, with rights of residence stemming from statutory consent, not merely from the First Respondent's employment contract or the housing agreement. The Constitutional Court's decision in Klaase is binding and establishes that spouses and children who have resided openly and continuously on the land are occupiers in their own right. The principle of pacta sunt servanda does not override statutory rights under ESTA, which are protected by the Constitution. The termination of the Second Respondent's residence was no…
Source excerpt
Louwerivier Plase (Edms) Bpk and Others v Paulse and Others (LCC18R2018, 3498/2017) [2018] ZALCC 6 (17 April 2018)
On automatic review under ESTA, the court set aside part of an eviction order because it would separate a mother from her minor children, but confirmed eviction of two adult respondents.
Explore more
