The difference between a relocation and an eviction in the context of ESTA: A critical reflection on Boplaas Landgoed (Pty) Ltd v Jonkies (LCC 37/2022) [2022] ZALCC 38 (15 August 2022)

Abstract

In recent years, disputes around the relocation of occupiers under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) have increased significantly. This contribution analyses the case of Boplaas Landgoed (Pty) Ltd v Jonkies (LCC 37/2022) [2022] ZALCC 38 (15 August 2022) (Jonkies), in which an owner sought the relocation of ESTA occupiers from their ESTA homes to state-sponsored ones allocated to them by the state and which they owned. The aim of this case note is to critically reflect on the case of Jonkies. The argument is made that there is a distinction between “relocation” and “eviction”, and that not only owners should be able to request relocation. It is also argued that while relocations as evictions are not permitted under ESTA, ESTA occupiers who have been offered alternative housing by the state may be evicted. A balance is, however, required in the context of ESTA so as to challenge the historical hierarchy which persists between owners and ESTA occupiers, in order to transform property relations, ensure fairness, and prevent further prejudice to ESTA occupiers.