The Applicant, Rouxlandia Investments (Pty) Ltd, owned the farm Kaimansgat in Caledon, Western Cape. The First Respondent, Jan Johannes Oranje, and his family (Second to Fourth Respondents) occupied house no. [...] on the farm by virtue of the First Respondent's employment as a manager with Kaaimansgat Boerdery. A housing agreement signed on 16 December 2013 specifically allocated this house to management staff, with a clause providing for termination with 30 days' written notice if the occupier ceased to hold a management position. On 26 June 2014, the First Respondent was declared medically unfit for work, and his employment was terminated. The Applicant sought to relocate the Respondents to house no. [...] on the same farm, which was of comparable standard but smaller (5 rooms, with running water, flushing toilet, bathroom, electricity, solid leak-free roof, newly painted). The Applicant needed the current house for the new manager. The Respondents refused to relocate.
The First to Fourth Respondents and all those occupying through the First Respondent were ordered to relocate from house no. [...] to house no. [...] on the farm Kaaimansgat within 14 days of the date of the order. No order as to costs was made.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Relocation from one house to another on the same registered land unit does not constitute 'eviction' as contemplated in ESTA, which refers to removal from the registered unit as a whole (applying Chagi v Singisi Forest Products). (2) The Land Claims Court has jurisdiction under Section 20(1)(b) of ESTA to grant mandatory interdicts ordering relocation of occupiers from one dwelling to another on the same property. (3) Where an occupier is protected from eviction under Section 8(4)(b) of ESTA due to medical unfitness, relocation to suitable alternative accommodation on the same property remains a competent remedy available to the landowner. (4) A mandatory interdict for relocation may be granted where the applicant establishes: (a) a clear contractual or property right to the specific dwelling; (b) actual prejudice from continued occupation; and (c) no alternative remedy available (such as eviction). (5) Suitable alternative accommodation must be provided for relocation, comparable to the dwelling from which relocation is sought, as recognized in Drumearn (Pty) Ltd v Wagner.
The Court observed that the Respondents' challenge to the Court's jurisdiction 'ought to have been apparent and not raised as an issue to be considered' given the clear expression of the statutes and established case law. This suggests the Court viewed the jurisdictional challenge as lacking merit and potentially vexatious. The Court also noted, consistent with the practice of the Land Claims Court, that cost orders are not granted in matters of this nature, being 'in the genre of social action litigation,' save for exceptional reasons. This reinforces the Court's approach to access to justice in ESTA matters affecting vulnerable occupiers.
This case clarifies important aspects of ESTA jurisprudence in South Africa: (1) It confirms the Land Claims Court's jurisdiction to order relocation of occupiers from one dwelling to another on the same farm, as distinct from eviction from the land entirely. (2) It establishes that relocation applications can be brought as applications for mandatory interdicts under Section 20(1)(b) of ESTA. (3) It demonstrates the operation of Section 8(4)(b) protection for long-term occupiers who are medically unfit, preventing their eviction but not preventing their relocation to suitable alternative accommodation on the same property. (4) It illustrates how housing agreements that reserve specific dwellings for particular categories of employees (such as management) can be enforced through relocation orders even where occupiers have protected status. (5) It reinforces the practice in the Land Claims Court of not awarding costs in social action litigation absent exceptional circumstances.