Meaningful Engagement or Mediation or Structural Interdict? An Appropriate Remedy to Resolve Disputes under ESTA

Abstract

This article assesses meaningful engagement, mediation, and structural interdict as remedies to resolve disputes. The purpose of this article is to determine the appropriate remedy to resolve disputes under ESTA. It is argued that meaningful engagement or a structural interdict should be reconsidered with reference to the case law where these "remedies" have been used and imposed. This is because meaningful engagement or a structural interdict are remedies used to compel the State to fulfil its constitutional obligations. Arguably, it does not make sense to use and impose similar remedies to purely private parties. The article proposes that mediation (in terms of section 21 of ESTA) might be an effective alternative. This is because private landowners and ESTA occupiers are involved in an on going relationship, and they will have to live on the same land with each other after the dispute has been resolved. Therefore, mediation will potentially enable private landowners and ESTA occupiers to create a platform to forge respectful and good neighbourliness relationship for the future.