Dreyer & Dreyer CC v Masiteng and Others

The applicant, Dreyer & Dreyer CC, was a long-term lessee of a farm in the Vrede district. The first respondent, Mr Masiteng, arrived on the farm in 1993 with his parents and resided there continuously. His parents had permission from the owner to keep cattle. Mr Masiteng was later employed by the applicant from 2012 until his dismissal in 2019. After the deaths of his parents and the termination of his employment, disputes arose regarding grazing rights, livestock, and his right of residence. The applicant alleged that Mr Masiteng’s right of residence arose solely from his employment and sought eviction of him and his family, including minor children. A probation officer’s report under section 9(3) of ESTA confirmed long-term occupation since 1993, lack of alternative accommodation (only a vacant municipal site without a dwelling), and potential infringement of constitutional rights, particularly the children’s right to education. Despite this, the Magistrate’s Court granted an eviction order, which came before the Land Court on automatic review.

The eviction order of the Magistrate’s Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the eviction application. No order as to costs was made.

The case reinforces the protective purpose of ESTA and confirms that long-term occupiers residing on land before 4 February 1997 cannot be evicted under section 8(2) merely because employment ended. It affirms that courts must meaningfully engage with probation officer reports under section 9(3) and rigorously assess the risk of homelessness and the constitutional rights of occupiers, especially children. The judgment underscores that a bare municipal site without a dwelling does not amount to suitable alternative accommodation.