Isedor Skog N.O. and Others v Koos Agullus and Others

The appellants, trustees of the Rein Trust, owned a farm (Rein Hill Estate) on which the respondents, former farm workers and their families, resided in cottages with the consent of the Trust or its predecessor. The respondents’ employment and linked right of residence ended in June 2011, but they refused to vacate. An eviction application under ESTA was refused by the Magistrates’ Court in 2017 due to insufficient proof that the occupiers’ rights of residence had been lawfully terminated. In 2018 the Trust again terminated the respondents’ rights of residence following notices and alleged serious misconduct and an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. In 2019 the Trust sought eviction in the Land Claims Court, which dismissed the application, finding that the Trust relied on unsubstantiated, blanket allegations and had not shown that eviction would be just and equitable. The Trust appealed, and the occupiers cross-appealed, arguing that the matter was res judicata.

The appeal was upheld and the cross-appeal dismissed. The LCC order was set aside and replaced with an eviction order against all occupier respondents except the 11th and 12th respondents (deceased). The occupiers were ordered to vacate by 31 August 2023, failing which the sheriff was authorised to evict them. The Drakenstein Municipality was ordered to provide emergency housing. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the application of ESTA’s two-stage eviction process, the treatment of disputes of fact in motion proceedings under Plascon-Evans, and confirms that a prior failed eviction application does not necessarily render later ESTA proceedings res judicata where there are new facts and fresh termination of residence. It reinforces that courts must balance landowners’ rights with occupiers’ housing vulnerability, while recognising irretrievable breakdowns of relationships.