Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd v Roux and Others

Goedverwachting Farm (Pty) Ltd, the registered owner of portion 17 of the farm Goedverwachting in Gauteng, sought to evict Adriaan Johannes Roux and other occupiers residing through him. Roux had occupied the property since 2017 with the consent of the previous owner, Mr Keet, pursuant to a conditional sale to Deneys Swiss Dairy (Pty) Ltd. The sale failed, was cancelled, and Deneys later went into liquidation. Despite termination of consent and transfer of ownership to Goedverwachting in 2021, the respondents refused to vacate. Goedverwachting launched eviction proceedings under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). The Land Claims Court dismissed the application, holding that Roux was excluded from ESTA’s definition of ‘occupier’ because he was conducting commercial farming, relying solely on a probation officer’s report. Goedverwachting appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Land Claims Court was set aside and substituted with an order evicting the first and second respondents from the property by 31 July 2024, authorising the Sheriff, with SAPS assistance if necessary, to execute the eviction thereafter. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the limited role of probation officer reports under ESTA and affirms that courts may not rely on such reports to determine jurisdictional facts or make findings on issues not raised in the pleadings. It reinforces fundamental procedural principles that parties define the issues in dispute and that courts must confine themselves to those issues, particularly in eviction matters involving land tenure legislation.