Joubert and Another v Mkhonza and Others

The applicants are a farmer (first applicant) and the registered owner of Portion 1 of the Farm Welgevonden, KwaZulu-Natal (second applicant). The first applicant occupies and manages the farm under a 2017 sale agreement pending transfer. The first respondent, a 67-year-old pensioner, has lived on the farm since the 1990s and is an occupier protected under ESTA. Two brick structures were erected at her homestead: one commenced in or about 2023 and another in August 2025. The applicants alleged that both structures were built without consent and sought urgent interdictory relief and demolition. The first respondent contended that the 2023 structure was built with consent to replace dilapidated mud structures, and that the 2025 structure was built under the mistaken belief that earlier consent covered it. She further challenged urgency, standing, and authority to litigate.

The application concerning the 2023 structure was struck off the roll for lack of urgency. An interim interdict was granted in respect of the 2025 structure, restraining further construction or occupation. Demolition of the 2025 structure was stayed. The parties were directed to engage in good faith for 30 days to attempt to resolve the dispute. Failing agreement, either party could institute further proceedings regarding authorisation, regularisation, or demolition. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

The case clarifies the approach of the Land Court to urgent applications under ESTA, particularly the distinction between historic and recent conduct when assessing urgency. It confirms that ESTA occupiers may not unilaterally erect new dwellings without engagement, reinforces a cautious approach to demolition remedies, and affirms that authority to litigate can be challenged substantively without strict reliance on procedural rules.