Mathe and Others v Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd and Others

Nine applicants had lived for many years in a house on farm Nietgedacht 535, Lanseria, with the consent of previous owners. After the land was acquired by Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd, eviction proceedings were brought against unlawful occupiers of another settlement on the farm (the Mzala settlement) and settled by agreement in June 2010. In October 2010 the applicants’ house was demolished and they were evicted by the Sheriff and private security, allegedly under a warrant issued pursuant to that settlement. The applicants contended that they were occupiers under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) and that their eviction occurred without a valid court order applicable to them. They sought declaratory and restorative relief and alternative accommodation.

The eviction of the qualifying ESTA applicants was declared unlawful. The interim order allowing their return and providing emergency shelter stood. The respondents were directed to engage in bona fide negotiations regarding alternative accommodation for the ESTA occupiers. Relief was refused in respect of the two applicants who did not qualify as ESTA occupiers.

The case clarifies the evidentiary approach to determining ESTA occupier status, particularly continuous residence, consent, and income thresholds. It underscores that settlement agreements and eviction orders cannot be enforced against persons who were neither parties to nor represented in those proceedings, and it affirms the protection of long-term occupiers against unlawful evictions.