Our Constitution states that “no one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.” The Constitution further provides for everyone’s right “to access to adequate housing” and sets out the State’s obligation to ensure this right is upheld.
In this way, the Constitution attempts to balance the rights of landowners and occupiers and redress historical inequalities.
Enter the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA), which guarantees basic human rights for farmworkers and people living on someone else’s land in rural and peri-urban areas. Historically, these people do not have secure tenure of their homes or the land they use and are vulnerable to unfair eviction.
In terms of ESTA, if you have lived on someone else’s land with their permission, you have a legal right to remain there, and the owner cannot change this without consent unless there is a good reason to do so. ESTA aims to ensure long-term security of tenure , prevent unfair and arbitrary evictions, and encourage the government to assist occupiers and landowners to find long-term solutions to disputes involving occupation of land.
ESTA in a nutshell
What if your income exceeds the qualifying amount?
Even if an applicant’s income exceeds the prescribed qualifying amount, the court may still rule that an eviction is an infringement of rights in terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution, as it did in the case of Mahlangu & Others v Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd & Another . The court declared the eviction unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.
Spot the difference – distinctions between PIE and ESTA
The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), discussed in this blog previously, pertains to unlawful occupiers of residential land. In contrast, ESTA deals with the eviction of lawful or previously lawful occupiers of rural or peri-urban land.
Even if someone is evicted from non-urban land and is consequently deemed an unlawful occupier in terms of PIE, the eviction is still dealt with under ESTA because the land in question is non-urban. For example, in Agrico Masjinerie (Edms) Bpk v Swiers , an occupier had consent to live on land as defined in ESTA , voluntarily vacated the land, and later reoccupied it without consent, thus becoming an unlawful occupier in terms of PIE. The court found that ESTA still entitled the unlawful occupier to apply for restoration under ESTA.
Additionally, an occupier’s right to live on the land relates to the entire unit of land, and not to a specific area or house. This means that if a landowner wanted to relocate an occupier to another place on the same land, ESTA would not apply.
Interestingly, a smallholding in a township is not regarded as agricultural land for the purposes of ESTA and does not fall within the ambit of ESTA. In the case of Schaapkraal Community v Cassiem, the court ruled that smallholdings are designated for rural residential use according to the Cape Metropolitan Area Guide Plan of 1998, and no law designates smallholdings for agricultural use alone.
How to go about obtaining an eviction order
Property owners and occupiers alike have rights under South African law and it is important for everyone to receive fair and just treatment. Unfair and unjust evictions are fortunately a thing of the past.
We can help
SD Law & Associates are property and eviction law experts. We have an intimate knowledge of the legislation and can make sure your rights are protected under ESTA, whether you’re a landowner or an occupier. If you’re facing an unfair eviction or if you’re considering evicting someone and need to serve an eviction notice, we can help. Contact Simon on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za .
For about Simon Dippenaar click here.