May and Others v Windmeul Kelder and Others

The applicants were long-term occupiers on Farm 1652, Paarl Division, some residing there since 1982. The landowner obtained an eviction order in April 2018 while the occupiers were unrepresented and absent. A rescission application followed, during which the occupiers were represented by an attorney appointed through the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. That rescission application was settled, and by agreement a second eviction order was granted in August 2018, setting a later eviction date. The occupiers were ultimately evicted by the sheriff in March 2019. They then applied for rescission of both eviction orders, alleging that their attorney lacked a mandate to agree to the settlement, that the second order was erroneously granted, and that the eviction was contrary to ESTA. They also sought restoration of occupation, services, compensation, or alternatively suitable or emergency accommodation from the municipality.

The application for rescission of the eviction orders was dismissed. The occupiers were found not entitled to relief under section 14 of ESTA or to an order compelling the municipality to provide alternative or emergency accommodation.

The case clarifies the limited grounds on which the Land Claims Court may rescind its own orders and confirms that Uniform Rule 42 does not apply to that Court. It underscores that eviction orders granted by consent will stand unless lack of mandate or invalidity is properly proven, and it narrows the scope of section 14 of ESTA to unlawful evictions involving self-help.