Bezuidenhout and Others v Minister for Agriculture Land Reform Rural Development and Others

The applicants, including Nuveld Farming Empowerment Enterprise (Pty) Ltd, had been in possession of Plateau Farms, a state-owned farm near Beaufort West comprising three portions farmed as a single unit, since 2017. In 2022, a departmental committee recommended a 30-year lease to Nuveld, but in 2023 the fourth respondent (Chief Director) rejected this recommendation, leading to a pending review application. The fourth respondent then granted the fifth and sixth respondents permission to occupy two portions of Plateau Farms (Dassiesfontein and Dassies 2). On 17 January 2024 and 7 February 2024, the respondents broke the locks on the gates to these portions, which the applicants had locked, and replaced them with their own locks, thereby dispossessing the applicants of possession without legal process or court order.

• Whether the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the two farm portions
• Whether the respondents unlawfully deprived the applicants of possession without legal process
• Whether the application was urgent
• Whether the replying affidavit's failure to be properly commissioned was fatal to the application
• Whether there was a non-joinder of necessary parties (trusts and other beneficiaries)
• Whether an interdict should be granted to restrain further allocations pending the review

The court ordered: (i) restoration of possession of the two farm portions to the applicants with immediate effect; (ii) an interdict restraining the first to fourth respondents from allocating or implementing any allocation of any portion of Plateau Farms to any person pending finalisation of the review proceedings under case number 6553/2023; (iii) costs to be paid by the first to third respondents jointly and severally.

The mandament van spolie is a possessory remedy aimed at preserving public order by restoring factual possession before any inquiry into the merits. It requires proof of peaceful and undisturbed possession and unlawful deprivation without consent or legal process. The right to relief arises from deprivation otherwise than through legal process, and self-help is impermissible. An interdict may be granted to restrain future spoliations where threatened actions would undermine pending review proceedings, as this constitutes exceptional circumstances.

The court noted that the historical background of the Plateau farms, injustices suffered by other beneficiaries including the fifth and sixth respondents, land reform objectives, and the department's past failures were relevant elsewhere but 'certainly not in this determination' of spoliation. The court also observed that the review proceedings needed to be finalised and heard as soon as possible.

This case reinforces the robust protection of possession under the mandament van spolie in South African law, even against state actors pursuing land reform objectives. It confirms that state officials cannot bypass legal processes to dispossess possessors, regardless of historical injustices or land reform imperatives. The judgment also illustrates the interplay between spoliation relief and pending review proceedings, showing that courts will grant interlocutory interdicts to preserve the subject matter of reviews and prevent the review from being rendered moot by ongoing dispossessions.