Miga Boerdery (Pty) Limited and Another v Polka and Others

The applicants, Miga Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and an individual owner, sought the eviction of the first to third respondents, who were occupiers residing on Hermitage Farm, Worcester. The eviction was granted by the Worcester Magistrates’ Court under ESTA. The matter came before the Land Court on automatic review in terms of section 19(3) of ESTA. Reports from the Breede Valley Municipality and the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform indicated that no immediate alternative accommodation was available for the respondents and their family, raising concerns that eviction would lead to homelessness. The Magistrates’ Court nonetheless ordered eviction and directed the Municipality to provide alternative accommodation. The Land Court reviewed whether the eviction order was just and equitable, particularly in light of the lack of concrete, enforceable arrangements for alternative accommodation.

The eviction order was confirmed in part and amended. The application for eviction was granted; the Breede Valley Municipality was directed to provide emergency housing as close as possible to Hermitage Farm; temporary emergency housing kits were ordered if relocation was to an informal settlement without structures by 31 March 2026; the respondents were ordered to vacate by 30 April 2026; and no order as to costs was made.

This case reinforces the principle that ESTA evictions must be substantively just and equitable, particularly where eviction risks homelessness. It underscores the obligation of courts to issue enforceable and carefully tailored eviction orders that protect occupiers’ dignity and constitutional rights, and clarifies the role of municipalities in providing emergency housing in rural eviction contexts.