Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd v Roux and others (Leave to Appeal)

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Flatela J
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 2266 (LCC)
• Hearing Date: 08 June 2023
• Docket Number: LCC 129/2022

Flatela J:

[1]

This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment I delivered on 28 April 2023, wherein I dismissed the Applicant’s eviction application against the First and Second Respondents. The dismissal of the application was premised on my view that this Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with this eviction as I was of the opinion that the Respondents were not occupiers as defined by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA).

[2]

The Applicant is Goedvewachting Pty Ltd, a private company with limited liability duly incorporated within the laws of the Republic of South Africa. The Applicant became the property’s registered owner on 24 June 2021.

[3]

The First Respondent is Adriaan Johannes Roux, a major male businessman currently residing on the property. The First Respondent conducts farming activities on the property.

[4]

The second respondent is all those who occupy the property under Roux or by association with him. The respondents have occupied the property since 2017 through Denneys Swiss Diary (Pty) Ltd (Denneys). Denneys intended to purchase the property from Mr. Barend Frederik Keet, the previous owner. Denneys was given the conditional right of occupation by Keet pending the payment of a purchase price. The transaction did not go through, and in 2019, the right of occupation of the farm was canceled by Keet; in 2020, the previous owner sold the property to the Applicant.

[5]

The Applicant approached the Court to seek eviction of the respondents on the basis that the respondent’s right to occupation on the farm had been terminated and that they are in unlawful occupation.

[6]

The First Respondent opposed the application on the grounds that he was given permission to reside on the property by the directors of Denneys Swiss Diary and they also gave him a job of being in charge of the farm. Denneys Diary is in liquidation.

2023 JDR 2266 p3

Flatela J

[7]

The Probation Officer’s report stated that the First Respondent was conducting a commercial farming business on the property.

[8]

Having considered the purpose of ESTA, I held that the respondents were not Occupiers as defined by Section 1 of ESTA. ESTA excludes from the definition of an occupier a person using or intending to use the land in question mainly for industrial, mining, commercial, or commercial farming purposes.

[9]

On the facts of this case, I found that the respondents have been occupying...