Rula Tecno Park (Pty) Ltd (the applicant) sought to evict 31 named occupiers and all illegal occupiers from Erf 13 Alsef AH, Roodepoort Township. The matter initially came before the Land Claims Court on automatic review in terms of section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). The Magistrate had granted an eviction order. Justice Ngcukaitobi overturned the Magistrate's order and dismissed the eviction application. The applicant then applied for leave to appeal against this judgment. The applicant had sent notices of termination to only some of the occupiers, not all. The eviction was sought on the basis of alleged acts of misconduct by individual occupiers. There was no evidence of proper termination of the right of residence in accordance with section 8(1)(a) to (e) of ESTA for all occupiers.
The application for leave to appeal was refused. No order as to costs was made.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Rule 35A(2) of the Land Claims Court Rules confers a discretion on the court when conducting automatic reviews under section 19(3) of ESTA, and does not create a mandatory obligation to afford parties a hearing or opportunity to make submissions in every case; (2) Prior to instituting eviction proceedings under ESTA, a landowner must lawfully terminate the right of residence of all occupiers in accordance with section 8(1)(a) to (e) of ESTA - service of the eviction application itself does not constitute termination; (3) Notices of termination must be sent to all occupiers whose eviction is sought, not merely some of them; (4) Eviction applications must be based on specific, proven allegations against individual occupiers, not diffuse or unproven allegations against occupiers treated as a group; (5) The test for leave to appeal is whether the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
The court observed that treating occupiers as a group would constitute a violation of their individual rights and entitlements protected under ESTA. The court noted that the applicant was aware the matter would be referred for automatic review but never requested an opportunity to make further submissions, and pointed to no peculiar features warranting the exercise of discretion to allow such submissions. The court commented that creating a compulsory regime requiring hearings in all automatic reviews would 'frustrate the efficacy of automatic review proceedings and stultify the entire institution of automatic reviews.' The court also observed that a judge seized with an automatic review is best placed to assess the facts of each matter and determine whether the discretion in Rule 35A(2) should be exercised.
This case reinforces the protective framework of ESTA and the procedural safeguards required before eviction of occupiers. It clarifies that automatic review proceedings under section 19(3) of ESTA operate with judicial discretion regarding the hearing process, not mandatory requirements. The judgment emphasizes the strict requirements for lawful termination of rights of residence under section 8 of ESTA, requiring proper notice to all occupiers and consultation. It confirms that eviction proceedings must be based on specific, proven allegations against individual occupiers rather than diffuse group allegations. The case demonstrates the court's rigorous approach to protecting occupiers' rights and ensuring compliance with ESTA's requirements, particularly in light of the Constitutional Court's guidance in Molusi v Voges NO regarding the fairness assessment required for termination of residence rights.