Snyders and Others v de Jager

The Snyders family had continuously occupied a dwelling on the Stassen Farm from 1992. Mr Snyders' employment was terminated in April 2008. In 2009, Ms de Jager (the farm manager) applied for eviction. The Magistrate's Court granted an eviction order on 14 November 2012, which the Land Claims Court confirmed on 13 February 2013. Mr Snyders appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which on 30 September 2015 struck the matter from the roll, holding that the appeal should have been to the Land Claims Court instead. On 1 October 2015, without notice to the Snyders family and while they were absent, Ms de Jager caused the Sheriff to evict them, throwing their belongings into the street. Ms de Jager immediately allowed Mr Breda and his family to move into the dwelling. The Snyders family were given temporary shelter in a storage shed by a neighboring farmer. Mr Snyders' attorney sent emails to Ms de Jager's attorney on 1 October 2015 (at 14h33 and later) indicating intent to appeal to the Constitutional Court and requesting the eviction be halted, but by then the eviction had been completed.

• Whether interim relief should be granted pending the outcome of an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court
• What are the requirements for interim relief under ESTA
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured restoring the Snyders family to occupation
• Whether it was appropriate to grant interim relief affecting third parties (the Breda family) without joining them or hearing them
• What costs order should be made given the manner in which the eviction was conducted

The Constitutional Court granted the interim order on 16 October 2015, ordering Ms de Jager to take all necessary steps to restore peaceful possession of the dwelling to the Snyders family by 20 October 2015, pending the outcome of the application for leave to appeal. On costs, Ms de Jager was ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the interim application on the scale as between attorney and client as a mark of the Court's disapproval of her conduct.

In applications for interim relief pending appeal in ESTA matters: (1) applicants must satisfy the established requirements for interim relief, including demonstrating a prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and absence of alternative remedy; (2) where alternative accommodation is available for new occupants of disputed property, the balance of convenience favours restoring possession to long-term occupiers who have been evicted without notice; (3) eviction of occupiers without any notice, particularly where they have occupied property for an extended period, violates principles of dignity and procedural fairness; (4) an order requiring a party to 'take all necessary steps' to restore possession refers to all lawful necessary steps, not unlawful eviction without a court order; (5) punitive costs orders on an attorney-and-client scale may be appropriate where a party has conducted an eviction in a demeaning manner without notice.

Zondo J made strong obiter observations condemning the manner in which Ms de Jager evicted the Snyders family, describing it as 'reminiscent of the evictions under apartheid' and stating it 'deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms'. The majority suggested that Ms de Jager's attorneys may have had a professional obligation to notify the Snyders' attorney of the planned eviction. The judgment also clarified that the interim order contemplated lawful steps including negotiation with the Breda family or, if necessary, instituting eviction proceedings against them, not forceful eviction without a court order. Cameron J in dissent observed that the Constitutional Court is 'ill-suited to hear urgent applications' particularly during recess when members are dispersed. He also noted that both parties could be faulted for the breakdown in communication after the SCA judgment, not only Ms de Jager. The dissent criticized the attorney's conduct throughout the proceedings as 'rancorous and litigious' and suggested the attorney should pay costs of the contempt proceedings from his own pocket.

This case addresses the test for interim relief in the context of ESTA and emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and dignity in evictions. It demonstrates the Court's willingness to grant interim relief where occupiers have been evicted in a manner that disregards their human dignity and without proper notice. The case also illustrates tensions between protecting security of tenure rights and ensuring that third parties affected by interim orders are afforded procedural fairness. The majority's condemnation of eviction practices reminiscent of apartheid underscores constitutional values of dignity and the right to housing. The case also highlights practical difficulties in the Constitutional Court hearing urgent applications, particularly during recess periods.