Kiepersol Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd v Phasiya

The appellant, Kiepersol Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd, leased and operated a poultry farm (Zandspruit) and provided housing on the farm to its employees. The respondent’s father, Sam Phasiya, was a long‑term employee who occupied a house on the farm. After Sam retired in 2004 following an accident, the appellant alleged that Sam permanently moved to live with another son and abandoned his residence on the farm. The respondent, who remained in the house with his family, claimed he occupied the premises under his father’s continuing right of residence as an ‘occupier’ protected by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). The appellant issued notices to the respondent to vacate and brought eviction proceedings. The Land Claims Court dismissed the application, finding that Sam had not abandoned his residence. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded. The order of the Land Claims Court was set aside and replaced with an order directing the respondent to vacate the premises by 31 January 2010, failing which the sheriff was authorised to evict him and his dependants.

The case is significant for clarifying the meaning of ‘residing’ and ‘occupier’ under ESTA. It confirms that residence entails a permanent home and that occasional visits or sentimental attachment do not amount to residence. The judgment provides guidance on assessing factual disputes about abandonment of residence and underscores that adult family members may independently qualify as occupiers under ESTA.