Magubane and Another v Twin City Developers (Pty) Ltd and Others

The appellants had resided on farm land in Mpumalanga since 1975 and 1980. The land was owned by the first respondent and farmed by the second respondent. The appellants were no longer employees of the respondents, and their right of residence was terminated on 2 July 2013 in terms of s 10 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). They disputed the lawfulness of the termination, prompting eviction proceedings in the Land Claims Court (LCC). Although a probation officer’s report required by s 9(3) of ESTA had been requested and was filed before judgment, it was not considered by the LCC when granting the eviction order. The appellants appealed on the basis that this omission constituted a material irregularity.

The appeal was dismissed. The eviction order of the Land Claims Court was substituted with an amended order extending the eviction date, increasing compensation to R100 000 for each appellant, requiring assistance with relocation, authorising the sheriff to effect eviction if necessary, and making no order as to costs.

The case clarifies that while consideration of a s 9(3) probation officer’s report under ESTA is mandatory, a failure to do so does not automatically invalidate an eviction order if the report’s contents do not warrant a different outcome. It affirms the SCA’s power to consider such reports on appeal in the interests of justice and convenience, rather than remitting matters to the Land Claims Court, and underscores the balance between occupiers’ constitutional rights and landowners’ rights.