Skhosana and Others v Jose and Others

The applicants, members of the Skhosana family, sought urgent restoration of residence under section 14 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). Their parents had previously lived on a farm owned by the first respondent, Mr Jose. The parents had left the farm due to illness and later passed away. The applicants alleged that they resided on the farm until April 2023, when they were unlawfully evicted and their residential structures demolished by Mr Jose. Mr Jose denied that the applicants resided on the farm, contending that no one had lived there since at least 2016, and relied on a protection order granted in April 2023 prohibiting the applicants from entering the farm. After repeated notices to remove belongings, Mr Jose demolished the unoccupied structures and removed the remaining property. The applicants sought restoration of residence, services, and compensation.

The application for restoration of residence was dismissed; the rule nisi was discharged; the first respondent’s condonation application was granted; and no order as to costs was made.

The case reinforces the strict requirements for establishing occupier status under ESTA, particularly the need to prove residence and income. It highlights the evidentiary burden on applicants seeking restoration of residence and confirms that ESTA remedies are unavailable where residence is not established or where a valid court order lawfully restricts access to land. The judgment also underscores the importance of addressing foreseeable disputes of fact appropriately in motion proceedings.