Randfontein Municipality v Grobler and Others

The owner of agricultural land, Mr John Michael Grobler, applied to the South Gauteng High Court for the eviction of approximately 2 000 occupiers residing on Portion 74 of the Farm Elandsvlei, Randfontein. The occupiers had settled on the land as far back as 1959 and formed an established community receiving basic municipal services. Grobler purchased the property in February 2005, at which time the occupiers were already in residence. He alleged that they occupied the land without his consent and sought eviction under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). The occupiers opposed the application, contending that they resided on the land with express or tacit consent and were therefore protected by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA), which would oust the High Court’s jurisdiction. The High Court accepted Grobler’s version, found no real dispute of fact, and proceeded under PIE. Randfontein Municipality appealed against that decision.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order postponing the eviction application for the hearing of oral evidence to determine (i) whether the occupiers were ESTA occupiers, (ii) whether they had consent to reside on the land, and (iii) whether ESTA or PIE applied. No order as to costs was made in the appeal.

The case clarifies the jurisdictional divide between PIE and ESTA and underscores the importance of properly determining consent, particularly tacit consent, in eviction matters involving rural or agricultural land. It reinforces that long-term occupation and state conduct such as service provision may support an inference of tacit consent, and that courts must be slow to decide such disputes on motion where jurisdiction depends on contested facts.