Grobler v Phillips and Others

The appellant, Willem Grobler, purchased erf 14611, Somerset West, at a public auction in 2008. The first respondent, Clara Phillips, an 84-year-old widow, had lived on the property since 1947 and resided there with her disabled son, represented by a curator. She claimed an oral lifelong right of occupation granted by previous owners. After purchase, the appellant gave notice terminating her occupation and sought eviction under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). The Magistrates’ Court granted eviction, but the Western Cape High Court set it aside, holding that the appellant failed to prove unlawful occupation, that ESTA might apply, and that eviction would not be just and equitable. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The eviction order was refused, and the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s attorneys’ disbursements incurred in preparing for the appeal.

The case clarifies the relationship between PIE and ESTA, confirming that an owner seeking eviction under PIE bears the onus of proving that ESTA does not apply. It also affirms that even where occupation is unlawful, courts retain a wide equitable discretion under PIE to refuse eviction in order to protect vulnerable occupiers, reinforcing the constitutional imperative against arbitrary evictions.