Du Randt v Khaka and Others

The applicant, Barend Jakobus du Randt, is the owner of the farm Marinus 1043 in the Eastern Cape. The first respondent, Keke Khaka, began occupying the property in 1980 as an employee of the applicant’s father. The remaining respondents are his children and grandchildren who reside on the farm through their family relationship with him. After the first respondent was retrenched in 2003, the applicant alleged that the respondents no longer had a right to occupy the land and had committed various breaches under section 6(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). The respondents denied these allegations and disputed the lawfulness of the retrenchment. Eviction proceedings were instituted in the Magistrate’s Court, where the parties reached a settlement agreement by mutual consent. In terms of the settlement, the applicant undertook to build an alternative house for the respondents and provide transport, in exchange for them vacating the farm. The Magistrate’s Court made the settlement an order of court. The matter was referred to the Land Claims Court on automatic review under section 19(3) of ESTA.

The settlement agreement and the Magistrate’s Court order of 6 August 2015 were confirmed, subject to variation. The Land Claims Court ordered that if the respondents failed to vacate the land within 15 days after the alternative house was completed, the Sheriff was authorised to evict them within a further 7 days.

The case is significant for clarifying the Land Claims Court’s supervisory role in automatic reviews under ESTA and its duty to scrutinise settlement agreements involving evictions. It confirms the application of the Constitutional Court’s decision in Eke v Parsons to eviction matters and emphasises that even consensual evictions must comply with ESTA, including the requirement to set just and equitable eviction dates.