Nasar Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gerald Gert Theron and Others

This matter concerns an eviction application relating to occupiers on Rustig Farm in De Doorns. The applicants were Nasar Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and trustees of the Dunamis Trust who owned the farm. The first to third respondents were the Theron family occupying the farm, including two minor children. The matter was initially heard in the Worcester Magistrate Court (case 463/23) where Acting Magistrate Giyana granted an eviction order requiring the respondents to vacate by 31 January 2025, with the municipality (sixth respondent) ordered to provide emergency housing by 30 November 2024. The matter came before the Land Court as a review application under section 19(3) of ESTA.

• Whether the Magistrate's eviction order should be confirmed on review under section 19(3) of ESTA
• Whether the timeframes set by the Magistrate for eviction and provision of alternative accommodation were appropriate
• Whether the municipality was properly ordered to provide emergency housing suitable for human habitation with access to basic services

The order of the Magistrate was confirmed with variations to timeframes: (1) The first to fourth respondents were ordered to vacate Rustig Farm, De Doorns by 30 June 2026; (2) Should they fail to vacate, the Sheriff was authorized to evict them by 15 July 2026; (3) The sixth respondent (Breede Valley Municipality) was ordered to provide emergency housing suitable for human habitation with access to basic services by 30 April 2026; (4) No order as to costs.

In reviewing ESTA eviction orders under section 19(3), the Land Court has the power to vary timeframes set by the Magistrate Court where circumstances require, particularly where the lapse of time necessitates adjustment to ensure that municipalities have sufficient and reasonable time to comply with orders to provide alternative accommodation. When confirming eviction orders, courts must ensure that adequate time is afforded to both occupiers to vacate and to municipalities to fulfill their obligations to provide emergency housing suitable for human habitation with access to basic services.

The judgment does not contain significant obiter dicta. The Court's decision was focused on the narrow issue of confirming the Magistrate's order with necessary temporal adjustments. The Court did not make broader observations about ESTA jurisprudence, the constitutional right to housing, or the duties of municipalities beyond what was necessary for the determination of the review application.

This case demonstrates the operation of the review mechanism under section 19(3) of ESTA, whereby eviction orders granted by Magistrate Courts in ESTA matters are automatically reviewed by the Land Court. It illustrates the Land Court's approach to balancing the rights of landowners to recover possession of their property with the constitutional rights of occupiers to adequate housing. The case confirms the municipality's obligation to provide alternative accommodation in eviction proceedings and shows the Court's willingness to adjust timeframes pragmatically to ensure municipalities can fulfill their constitutional and statutory obligations to provide emergency housing.