Supreme Court Ruling on Evictions

Recently the South African Supreme Court of Appeal addressed a crucial issue regarding eviction under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA).

The Goedverwachting  v  Roux ¹ case involved Goedverwachting seeking to evict Roux and others from a farm in Gauteng Province.  Goedverwachting, as the farm's owner, filed for eviction citing the termination Roux's occupancy rights.

The dispute centred on whether Roux qualified as an "occupier’' under ESTA, which protects individuals residing on land belonging to others.

The primary legal question was whether Roux's activities on the farm constituted commercial farming, thereby excluding him from ESTA protection as defined in section 1 of the Act.

Section 1 of ESTA defines an “occupier” as follows:

“occupier” means a person residing on land which belongs to another person, and who, on 4 February 1997 or thereafter had consent or another right in law to do so, but excluding -

(a) ....

(b) a person using or intending to use the land in question mainly for industrial, mining, commercial or commercial farming purposes, but including a person who works the land himself or herself and does not employ any person who is not a member of his or her family; and

(c) A person who has an income in excess of the prescribed amount; ²

Roux and his associates had occupied the farm since 2017 with initial consent from the previous owner, Keet.  However, disputes arose and Keet requested Roux to vacate the property.  The property was sold to Goedverwachting in 2020, leading to an eviction application based on terminated consent and alleged damage to the property.

The question before the Supreme Court of Appel was whether commercial farming was conducted on the farm, and if so, whether there were any other than Roux and his family members employed on the farm. ³

The Land Claims Court (LCC) initially dismissed the eviction application, citing a probation officer's report that indicated Roux was engaged in commercial farming on the land and determined that the LCC did not have jurisdiction to determine the eviction. The Court highlighted procedural errors by the LCC in determining facts not in dispute and without hearing submissions from both parties.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that “the LCC erred in finding that the respondents were excluded from the definition of “occupier” under section 1 of ESTA and dismissing the application for eviction on this basis.  Taking into consideration that the requirements of section 11 of ESTA have been compiled with, it is just and equitable to grant an order for eviction against Roux and all those occupying through him.” ⁴

The Court stressed that Roux's alleged commercial farming activities and failure to fulfil conditions set by the previous owner negated his protection under ESTA.

In conclusion this judgment clarifies the application of ESTA concerning eviction proceedings and the definition of "occupier” in cases involving agricultural land. It underscores the importance of proper legal procedures and the role of evidence in determining eviction rights under South African law.

‍

Written by: Gustav Snyman
Moderated and approved by: Glenda Nell


¹ Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd v Adriaan Johannes Roux and Others (641/2023) [2024] ZASCA 83

² Section 1 of Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997

³ par 3 Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd v Adriaan Johannes Roux and Others (641/2023) [2024] ZASCA 83

⁴ par 22 Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd v Adriaan Johannes Roux and Others (641/2023) [2024] ZASCA 83

‍