Moladora Trust v Mereki and Others

The Moladora Trust, owner of the farm Wildebeeslaagte 282 in the North West Province, sought an order compelling the Mereki children, who were occupiers under ESTA by virtue of their late mother’s residence, to remove their livestock from the farm. The Mereki children had continued to reside on the farm after their mother’s death but had never obtained express consent to keep or graze livestock. Despite repeated letters and engagements by the trust denying consent and demanding removal of livestock, the Mereki children refused. They did not oppose the application in the Land Claims Court with affidavits. The Land Claims Court nevertheless found that the trust had given tacit consent to grazing. The trust appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The Land Claims Court order was set aside and replaced with an order directing the first to third respondents to remove all livestock from the farm, authorising the Sheriff and relevant authorities to impound the livestock if they failed to comply within 30 days, and interdicting them from keeping livestock on the farm without the trust’s prior consent. No order as to costs was made.

The judgment reaffirms that ESTA occupier status does not confer grazing or livestock rights and that such rights arise only from consent or agreement with the landowner. It also underscores that courts may not decide matters on unpleaded issues and clarifies the strict requirements for inferring tacit consent or tacit agreements in land and ESTA-related disputes.