Drakenstein Municipality v CJ Cillie en Seun (Pty) Ltd and Others

The first respondent, a landowner, sought the eviction of the second and third respondents, farm occupiers residing in a worker’s house on the farm Onverwacht, under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). During the eviction proceedings, the occupiers joined the Drakenstein Municipality, seeking information on the availability of emergency or alternative accommodation should eviction be granted. The Municipality filed reports in 2011 and 2014 stating that it could not, for the foreseeable future, provide emergency housing, although land for such purposes had been budgeted for but not yet developed. The Magistrate granted the eviction and, in addition, ordered the Municipality to make land available for emergency housing and ordered the landowner to erect a Wendy house for the occupiers. These latter orders were confirmed on automatic review. The Municipality appealed against the portions of the order directing it to provide land and related relief.

The appeal was upheld. The matter was remitted to the Wellington Magistrate’s Court for reconsideration, with particular emphasis on compliance with section 9(3) of ESTA.

The case underscores the mandatory nature of probation officer reports under section 9(3) of ESTA and affirms that courts may not grant mandatory relief not sought or pleaded by the parties. It clarifies procedural limits on magistrates in eviction matters and reinforces fairness to municipalities when eviction-related obligations are contemplated.