Crookes Brothers Limited and Another v Makhatha and Others

The applicants, Crookes Brothers Limited and Crookes Brothers South Africa (Pty) Ltd, instituted eviction proceedings in 2019 against the respondents, Mr Thabo Makhatha, Ms Nontombi, and their minor children, from farm property owned by the first applicant. Mr Makhatha had lived on the property since 2000 and his right of residence arose from his employment, which was terminated in 2014 following dismissal for misconduct. Ms Nontombi had resided openly on the property since 2013 and worked on a neighbouring farm. The eviction application in the Magistrate’s Court was effectively unopposed, although a probation officer’s report under ESTA highlighted the respondents’ personal circumstances, including unemployment, minor children, and possible lack of alternative accommodation. The Magistrate granted an eviction order in June 2022. The matter came before the Land Claims Court on automatic review in terms of section 19(3) of ESTA.

The eviction order granted by the Magistrate of Caledon on 15 June 2022 was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Magistrate’s Court. The Land Claims Court substituted the order to grant the applicants leave to supplement their founding affidavit, directed that an updated probation officer’s report be obtained, and ordered that the Theewaterskloof Municipality deliver a report addressing the availability of alternative accommodation.

This case underscores the strict procedural and substantive safeguards imposed by ESTA in eviction matters, particularly the recognition of independent occupier status, the necessity of just and equitable termination of residence, and the obligation on courts to actively consider alternative accommodation and the risk of homelessness. It reaffirms the central role of probation officer and municipal reports in ensuring constitutionally compliant evictions.