Elankor SES (Pty) Ltd v Ngcosholo and Others

The respondent, Mr Ngcosholo, had lived and worked on Portion 89 of the Kragga Kamma farm since 1973, occupying a six-roomed dwelling with his wife, children and grandchildren. He was an occupier as defined under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA), having resided on the farm long before 4 February 1997. The applicant purchased the farm around 2000–2001 with the intention of developing it into an eco-estate. Efforts were made over several years by the applicant, former owners, a private individual, and the Department of Land Affairs to find alternative accommodation for the respondent, including RDP housing and vacant land, but none materialised that met the statutory definition of suitable alternative accommodation. A magistrate granted an eviction order in 2006, which led to a complex procedural history involving remittals, reviews, and a clarification application, before the matter ultimately returned to the Land Claims Court for final determination.

The eviction order granted by the Port Elizabeth Magistrate on 7 March 2006 was set aside in its entirety in terms of section 19(3)(b) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997.

This case underscores the stringent protection afforded to long-term farm dwellers under ESTA and clarifies that eviction under section 10(2) is impermissible unless suitable alternative accommodation is actually available. It reinforces the distinction between ESTA and PIE, confirming that ESTA imposes a higher threshold for eviction and that landowners’ development interests must yield where eviction would result in homelessness.