South Africa Case Law

Thys v S (246/24)

Thys v S (246/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 324; 2025 (1) SACR 243 (WCC) (21 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

246/24

Judges

Montzinger, Henney

The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for trespassing were not in accordance with justice. The appellant was an ESTA occupier, having resided on the farm all his life and not earning above the statutory income threshold. The magistrate failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the appellant's status under ESTA and allowed the criminal process to be used as a mechanism for eviction, contrary to constitutional and statutory protections. The Trespass Act cannot be used to evict an ESTA occupier, and criminal proceedings must yield to the procedural safeguards of ESTA and the Constit…

Source excerpt

• Trespass Act
• Esta Occupier Definition
• Eviction Procedure
• Section 26 Constitution
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Unlawful Eviction

Van Der Westhuizen v S (A11/2022)

Van Der Westhuizen v S (A11/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1109 (5 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A11/2022

Judges

Barit, Millar

The appeal was upheld because the appellant did not receive a fair trial as required by the Constitution and case law. The trial court failed to assist the unrepresented appellant, did not adequately explain her rights, and allowed inadmissible hearsay evidence. The evidence for assault was inconsistent, lacked medical corroboration, and was contradicted by the absence of injury and missing video footage. The trespass charge was unsustainable as the appellant was permitted entry by security and had a legitimate reason to visit her ex-husband. The respondent conceded there was insufficient evi…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Trespass Act
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Condonation
• Unrepresented Accused

Vaalharts Water Users' Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams and Another (522/2022)

Vaalharts Water Users' Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams and Another (522/2022) [2022] ZANCHC 73 (4 November 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

522/2022

Judge

Lever

The High Court confirmed a rule nisi and granted a final interdict against unlawful occupation and trespass on farm Guldenskat, with costs against the first respondent.

• Final Interdict
• Trespass Act
• Ostensible Authority
• Res Judicata
• Jurisdiction
• Costs Order

Vaalharts Water Users' Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams and Others (694/2022)

Vaalharts Water Users' Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams and Others (694/2022) [2022] ZANCHC 71 (4 November 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

694/2022

Judge

Lever

The applicant established a clear right to the property through its agreement with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, which obliges it to maintain the scheme and prevent unlawful occupation. The CEO of the applicant had ostensible authority to bring the application, and the first respondent did not properly challenge this authority under Rule 7. The previous Magistrate's decision in case 84/2020 was based on technical grounds and did not bind this court or constitute res judicata, as the facts in the present matter are distinct and occurred at a different time. The respondents fail…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Trespass Act
• Authority Of Corporate Officer
• Res Judicata
• Jurisdiction
• Costs Order

Vaalharts Water Users Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams (1926/2020)

Vaalharts Water Users Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams (1926/2020) [2021] ZANCHC 27 (2 July 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1926/2020

Judge

Stanton

The High Court confirmed a final interdict restraining the respondent from entering specified properties and offices, citing threats, trespass concerns, and no adequate alternative remedy.

• Final Interdict
• Trespass Act
• Lis Pendens
• Alternative Remedy
• Costs Order
• Final-interdict

Maphoto and Others v Minister of Police and Another (A3109/17)

Maphoto and Others v Minister of Police and Another (A3109/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 442 (20 June 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3109/17

Judges

Malebo Habedi, Ingrid Opperman

The High Court held the appellants’ arrest and detention unlawful, but dismissed their malicious prosecution claim. The matter was sent back for damages on the first claim.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Malicious Prosecution
• Trespass Act
• Eviction Orders
• Quantum Of Damages

Ego Gardens (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Police and Others (19186/2018)

Ego Gardens (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Police and Others (19186/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 158 (30 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19186/2018

Judge

MIA

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency and locus standi for the relief sought. The police's resource constraints and operational procedures made the requested orders impractical, and the municipality's obligations under PIE would only arise after actual occupation, not mere trespass. Orders against unidentified and unserved groups were found to be ineffective and unenforceable. The applicants, as property owners, bear the primary responsibility to protect their property from trespass and unlawful occupation. The court declined to compel the police to provide specific…

Source excerpt

• Trespass Act
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Municipal Obligations
• Urgent Interdict
• Constitutional Property Rights
• Police Duties

Elmir (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zulu and Others (2016/30385)

Elmir (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zulu and Others (2016/30385) [2017] ZAGPJHC 240 (1 September 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2016/30385

Judge

L Adams

The court held that the City of Tshwane Metro Police has a statutory duty to prevent crime, which includes unlawful land invasion and trespassing. The Metro Police are required to enforce court orders relating to land occupation, as their functions under section 64E of the South African Police Service Act include crime prevention. The argument that their primary function is traffic law enforcement does not negate their obligation to prevent crime. The applicants made out a case for a mandatory interdict, and the order is not impractical as the main perpetrators have been identified. The rule…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Mandamus
• Trespass Act
• Metro Police Duties
• Enforcement Of Court Orders

S v Hlatswayo (A104/12)

S v Hlatswayo (A104/12) [2017] ZAGPPHC 912 (9 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A104/12

Judge

S Potterill

The High Court reviewed and set aside a three-year trespass sentence because it exceeded the two-year statutory maximum, and remitted the matter for resentencing.

• Trespass Act
• Sentencing Limits
• Review Procedure
• Sentencing-limits
• Criminal-review-procedure
• Trespass-act

S v Dungan (39/2017, B222/686/2016, A99/2017)

S v Dungan (39/2017, B222/686/2016, A99/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 174 (2 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A99/2017

Judges

N Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, H J de Vos

On special review, the High Court set aside a magistrate’s sentence that exceeded the Trespass Act’s penalty limit and substituted a lawful sentence.

• Sentencing
• Trespass Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Penalty Provisions
• Criminal-sentencing
• Special-review