Pieters and Another v Stemmet and Another

The appellants, Jacob and Catherina Pieters, began residing on Portion 81 of the Farm Joostenberg Vlakte 728 in 1988 with the consent of the then owner, following Mr Pieters’ employment as a gardener. They continued to live there after his retirement and after ownership transferred to the first respondent in 2014. The property forms part of subdivided smallholdings within an area recognised as a township, but it is zoned ‘rural’ under the City of Cape Town Development Management Scheme. In 2018, the respondents instituted eviction proceedings under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). The appellants opposed the eviction and launched an application asserting that the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) applied. The Magistrates’ Court granted eviction under PIE and dismissed the ESTA claim. The Land Claims Court upheld that outcome, holding that ESTA did not apply because the land was within a township and not designated for agricultural purposes. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Land Claims Court was set aside and replaced with an order declaring that the property is subject to ESTA, that the appellants are long-term ESTA occupiers entitled to its protections, and that there is no order as to costs in the court a quo.

The case clarifies the interpretation of section 2(1)(a) of ESTA and confirms that land within a township can still fall under ESTA if it is designated for agricultural purposes through zoning or other legal instruments. It affirms that ‘rural’ zoning ordinarily includes agricultural designation and that actual land use is not determinative. The judgment strengthens the protective reach of ESTA and reinforces a purposive, constitutionally informed approach to land tenure legislation.