Quantum Foods (Pty) Ltd v Daniel Jansen and Others

Quantum Foods (Pty) Ltd, the owner of Eggland Farm in Uitenhage, Eastern Cape, applied to evict the first to thirteenth respondents from the property, which is used for agricultural purposes (egg production and wildlife propagation). The respondents were occupiers under ESTA residing in various cottages and a supervisor's house on the property. The affected households included: (1) Daniel and Bronja Jansen (supervisor's house); (2) Johannes and Nancy Jonas with their adult daughter Natalie (cottage 3); (3) Joan-Anne van Rooyen and Mario Olivier (cottage 6); (4) Morne Dedaa (cottage 1); (5) Burton and Berenique Quashu, now deceased (cottage 4); and (6) Charles Egen Aweries and Annamarie Pieterse (cottage 7). The thirteenth respondent comprised all other persons occupying the cottages. The probation officer's report and answering affidavit revealed that various adult persons residing on the property had not been served with termination notices. The Municipality's report dated August 2022 was based on information from the founding affidavit, but material disputes arose in the answering affidavit delivered in November 2022, including regarding earnings and housing database registration.

• Whether the applicant had properly terminated the rights of residence of all adult occupiers residing on the property in accordance with ESTA
• Whether there had been meaningful engagement with the State parties regarding suitable alternative accommodation for all affected occupants
• Whether the Court could determine the eviction application on the papers as presented
• The requirements for meaningful engagement in ESTA eviction proceedings
• The appropriate procedure when adult occupiers have not been served with termination notices but are presumed to have consent to reside on the property

The Court made the following order: (1) The Municipality, Department, applicant and first to thirteenth respondents still residing on the property (including all adults in the affected cottages) must engage meaningfully about suitable alternative accommodation and emergency accommodation within two months; (2) The Municipality must deliver a supplementary report by 31 July 2024; (3) If the applicant wishes to persist with the application, it must: (a) supplement its papers by 31 August 2024; (b) separately cite and serve each adult joined as thirteenth respondent; (c) detail the circumstances of each adult in a supplementary affidavit; (4) Respondents must deliver supplementary answering affidavits by 30 September 2024 detailing work experience, income (current and past three years), efforts to find alternative accommodation, and impact of eviction on employment and children's education; (5) Applicant may reply within 10 days; (6) Matter provisionally re-enrolled for 6 November 2024 for further argument; (7) Parties may deliver supplementary heads of argument; (8) Costs reserved.

An eviction application under ESTA cannot succeed where: (1) the applicant has failed to serve termination notices on all adult occupiers who are presumed under section 3(4) of ESTA to have consent to reside on the property by virtue of continuous and open residence for over a year before proceedings were instituted; and (2) there has not been meaningful engagement with relevant State parties regarding suitable alternative accommodation for all affected occupants, based on accurate and current information. Meaningful engagement must occur in a manner and timing that serves its purposes, including limiting homelessness, and must involve all affected occupiers and their family members. The engagement process must include consideration of possible State assistance under section 4 of ESTA for on or off-site developments, requiring involvement of both the relevant municipality and the provincial department responsible for land reform.

The Court noted that the value of meaningful engagement is two-fold (citing Miradel): it facilitates participatory democracy in resolving housing rights disputes, allowing occupiers a stake in decision-making which fundamentally affects their lives, and it carries the potential to achieve resolution of housing disputes in a pragmatic, humane and sustainable manner. While acknowledging that the applicant had been waiting a long time to resolve the dispute and that the applicant itself had initially delayed the process, the Court observed that there was no reason why the matter needed to be unduly further delayed if the parties complied with the order. The Court also observed that the precise timing and manner in which engagement must ensue to be meaningful will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but it must ensue in a manner that can serve its purposes. The Court distinguished the facts from Miradel, noting that in that case the focus was on engagement at the stage of termination of rights under section 8, whereas in the present case the applicant had attempted engagement before and after terminating rights, but further engagement was still necessary with State parties.

This case reinforces the importance of proper procedural compliance in ESTA eviction proceedings, particularly regarding service of termination notices on all adult occupiers. It emphasizes that meaningful engagement is not merely a formality but must serve substantive purposes including limiting homelessness. The judgment clarifies that meaningful engagement must occur in a manner appropriate to the circumstances and must be based on accurate, current information. It demonstrates the Court's willingness to ensure procedural fairness even where this may cause delay, and confirms that State parties must actively engage with occupiers regarding suitable alternative accommodation before eviction applications can be determined. The case also illustrates the application of the presumption in section 3(4) of ESTA that persons who have resided continuously and openly on property for over a year are presumed to have consent to do so, placing an onus on landowners to properly terminate such rights before seeking eviction.