Nomthandazo Chagi and Others v Singisi Forest Products (Pty) Ltd

The appellants were employees of Singisi Forest Products (Pty) Ltd and occupied employer-provided housing on land owned by the respondent in Singisi Forest, Harding. Their occupation of particular houses at Kynoch Village arose from a temporary arrangement originally permitted by the previous owner, SAFCOL. After Singisi acquired the business, wage-earning employees (including the appellants) paid no rent while salary-earning employees paid market-related rent. This caused labour tension. The respondent sought to relocate the appellants from Kynoch Village to alternative houses at Weza Sawmill Village on the same registered land unit, or alternatively to charge them market-related rent. The appellants refused relocation and rent deductions, claiming protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA), and sought an interdict preventing relocation and wage deductions. The magistrate and the Land Claims Court dismissed their claims, and the matter came before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs; the respondent was not required to comply with section 9 of ESTA before relocating the appellants.

This case clarifies the scope of protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act by confirming that ESTA does not prevent landowners from relocating occupiers within the same registered land unit. It draws a clear distinction between eviction from land and relocation of housing, reinforcing landowners’ constitutional property rights while defining the limits of occupiers’ tenure security.