Rouxlandia Investments (Pty) Ltd v Oranje and Others

The applicant, Rouxlandia Investments (Pty) Ltd, owned a farm on which the first respondent and his family resided in a house specifically reserved for management staff. The first respondent occupied the house by virtue of his employment and a housing agreement which expressly provided that the house was allocated only to management employees. After the first respondent was declared medically unfit and his employment terminated, he remained a protected occupier under section 8(4)(b) of ESTA and could not be evicted. The applicant required the management house for a newly appointed manager and requested the respondents to relocate to another, smaller but suitable house on the same farm. The respondents refused, leading the applicant to seek a relocation order under section 20(1)(b) of ESTA.

The respondents were ordered to relocate from the management house to another specified house on the same farm within 14 days. No order as to costs was made.

The case affirms that relocation of ESTA occupiers within the same property does not constitute eviction and that the Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to grant relocation orders as mandatory interdicts. It clarifies the balance between occupier protection and landowners’ operational needs where suitable alternative accommodation is available.