The applicants (Horseshoe Investments 0023 CC and Andre Adriaan Badenhorst) sought eviction of the first to third respondents (Jason Smith, Sophia Smith and unknown persons residing with them) from the farm known as Jakkalsfontein Farm, Malmesbury, Western Cape. A settlement agreement was reached between all parties, including the fourth respondent (Swartland Municipality) and the fifth respondent (Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development). On 27 May 2025, the Malmesbury Magistrates' Court made the settlement agreement an order of court. The settlement agreement provided for: (1) the sale of Erf 1140, Abbotsdale by the Municipality to the Department; (2) the purchase of the erf by the Department in terms of section 4(1) of ESTA for the benefit of the occupiers; and (3) occupation of the erf by the occupiers by 30 August 2025. The matter came before the Land Court on automatic review in terms of section 19(3) of ESTA. The record indicated that there had been postponements, repeated engagement to secure alternative accommodation, and that the occupiers received legal advice and concluded the settlement freely and voluntarily.
The Malmesbury Magistrates' Court order granted on 27 May 2025 (case no 594/2023) was confirmed, subject to paragraph 4 being substituted to provide that the Fourth Respondent must ensure that Erf 1140 is made available for occupation by the First to Third Respondents on or before 30 March 2026 (instead of 30 August 2025). In all other respects, the magistrate's court order (including the settlement agreement made an order of court) remained unchanged.
On automatic review under section 19(3) of ESTA, a Land Court may confirm a magistrate's court eviction order where the record demonstrates that: (1) meaningful engagement took place between all affected parties; (2) the occupiers received legal advice; (3) any settlement agreement was concluded freely and voluntarily; and (4) the magistrate granted the order with full knowledge and appreciation of the rights and obligations of all parties. Where delays in the automatic review process render dates in the original order impracticable, the court may adjust timelines to preserve the practical lead time contemplated by the parties while maintaining the substantive terms of the settlement.
The court observed that aspects of the Magistrate's Court order were unclear or not fully particularised, particularly regarding how the sale of the erf was structured, when it would be concluded, and the milestones for implementation. The court noted that the signature page in the record reflected execution by the applicants and first to third respondents, and while the agreement provided for execution in counterparts, there was nothing in the record to suggest that the fourth and fifth respondents disputed being bound by the order or that the magistrate granted it without full knowledge of all parties' positions.
This case demonstrates the operation of the automatic review process under section 19(3) of ESTA, which requires Land Court review of eviction orders made by magistrates' courts. It illustrates the court's role in scrutinizing whether proper procedures were followed, including meaningful engagement and the provision of legal advice to occupiers. The case also shows the court's willingness to exercise flexibility in adjusting timelines to preserve the practical effectiveness of orders where delays in the review process render original dates unworkable, while maintaining the substantive protections afforded to occupiers under ESTA. It confirms that settlement agreements incorporating alternative accommodation arrangements can be endorsed by courts as a just and equitable means of resolving ESTA eviction matters.