Horseshoe Investments 0023 CC and Another v Smith and Others

The applicants owned a farm known as Jakkalsfontein Farm in Malmesbury, Western Cape. The first to third respondents were occupiers residing on the farm and enjoyed protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). Eviction proceedings were instituted in the Malmesbury Magistrates’ Court. After prolonged engagement involving the occupiers, the Swartland Municipality, and the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, the parties concluded a settlement agreement. The settlement regulated the vacating of the farm by the occupiers and provided for alternative accommodation through the sale of Erf 1139, Abbotsdale by the municipality to the Department, to be made available to the occupiers. The magistrate made the settlement agreement an order of court on 27 May 2025. As the order constituted an eviction under ESTA, it was referred on automatic review to the Land Court in terms of s 19(3) of ESTA.

The Magistrates’ Court order of 27 May 2025 was confirmed on automatic review, subject to an amendment substituting the date by which Erf 1139, Abbotsdale must be made available for occupation by the first to third respondents to on or before 30 March 2026. In all other respects, the order, including the settlement agreement made an order of court, remained unchanged.

The case illustrates the Land Court’s supervisory role over ESTA eviction orders concluded by settlement and confirms that such orders remain subject to automatic review. It demonstrates the Court’s willingness to uphold consensual resolutions where meaningful engagement has occurred, while also exercising its powers to adjust practical aspects of orders to ensure fairness and feasibility. The judgment underscores the importance of realistic timelines in orders involving municipalities and organs of state responsible for alternative accommodation.