Frannero Property Investments 202 (Pty) Ltd v Selapa and Others

Frannero Property Investments 202 (Pty) Ltd purchased Portion 35 of the Farm Waterval 306 in Rustenburg, North West Province. The property had been used for decades by successive tenants, mainly mine workers, occupying rooms let on oral, month-to-month rental agreements initially concluded with the previous owner, Mr Formariz. From around 2014, rentals were largely unpaid and the property had been rezoned for industrial use. Frannero gave all tenants written 30-day notices cancelling the oral leases and requiring them to vacate by 31 October 2014. The tenants refused, asserting long-term occupation and protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). Frannero applied for eviction in the High Court under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). The High Court and, on appeal, a full bench held that the respondents were ESTA occupiers and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. Frannero sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Special leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was dismissed in respect of the respondents who qualified as ESTA occupiers (listed in Schedule A). The appeal was upheld in respect of the remaining respondents. The full court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order referring the eviction application back to the High Court for determination under the PIE Act. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the incidence of the onus under ESTA, confirming that occupiers who rely on the Act must prove that they fall within its definition, including compliance with the income threshold. It provides authoritative guidance on the interaction between ESTA and PIE, the role of statutory presumptions, and the limits of High Court jurisdiction in eviction matters involving alleged ESTA occupiers.