Boplaas 1743 Landgoed (Pty) Ltd v Julies and Others

The applicant, Boplaas 1743 Landgoed (Pty) Ltd, instituted eviction proceedings under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) against the respondents, who were occupiers residing on Du Cap Farm, Paarl. The first respondent was a long-term occupier protected under section 8(4) of ESTA and lived with her household members. Following a prior relocation order in October 2021, the respondents were moved into a smaller dwelling, which led to the erection of a makeshift structure to accommodate family members. The applicant alleged multiple material breaches by the respondents, including erecting unlawful structures, accommodating unauthorised occupiers, failing to remove stored belongings, defamatory social media conduct, and involvement in protests. These allegations were disputed in answering affidavits. On 26 July 2024, the Land Court dismissed the eviction application without deciding the merits, holding that foreseeable and genuine disputes of fact existed that could not be resolved on paper. The applicant subsequently applied for leave to appeal that decision.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The case underscores the strict application of the Plascon-Evans rule in eviction proceedings under ESTA and illustrates the elevated threshold for granting leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act. It reinforces that where genuine disputes of fact are foreseeable and unresolved in motion proceedings, eviction relief may be refused without a determination on the merits.