De Vos du Plessis and Another v Kriel N.O and Others

The appellants, an elderly married couple over the age of 70, are ESTA occupiers residing on a farm owned by the PG Kriel Werkers Trust. They occupied a three-bedroom house under an oral lease concluded with the previous owner. After purchasing the farm in 2013, the Trust sought in 2020 to relocate the appellants to a smaller house on the same property in order to make the larger house available for farm management purposes. The Trust did not seek to evict the appellants from the farm, only to move them to alternative accommodation on the farm. The appellants opposed the relocation, arguing that it was a disguised eviction, that the alternative accommodation was unsuitable, and that as long-term elderly occupiers they were protected under section 8(4) of ESTA. The Magistrate of Worcester granted a relocation order in terms of section 19(1)(b)(i) of ESTA, which decision was appealed to the Land Claims Court.

The appeal was dismissed and the relocation order granted by the Magistrate of Worcester was confirmed.

This judgment clarifies the legal distinction between eviction and relocation under ESTA and confirms that section 8 protections apply only where a right of residence is terminated. It affirms that landowners may seek relocation of occupiers on the same property without triggering eviction protections, provided that occupiers’ rights under sections 5 and 6 of ESTA are respected. The case is significant for the management of rural land and occupier relations and for clarifying procedural requirements in relocation disputes.