Quantum Foods (Pty) Ltd v Jansen and Others (LCC88/2021) [2024] ZALCC 18 (16 May 2024)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined that meaningful engagement with the Nelson Mandela Municipality and Department of Agriculture on suitable alternative accommodation was inadequate. Disputed information in reports, incomplete consultation with all affected respondents, and no engagement on potential State assistance under section 4 of ESTA were identified as key deficiencies.
• The court found that Quantum Foods did not terminate the rights of residence for several adults living on the property, who are presumed to have consented to their occupation under section 3(4) of ESTA. This failure prevents the eviction application from being granted under sections 8 or 9 of the Act.

Holdings

• The court is unsatisfied that meaningful engagement occurred regarding suitable alternative accommodation for all affected occupants with the State parties. Discrepancies exist between the Municipal report and answering affidavits, and not all respondents were included in consultations. No engagement on section 4 ESTA (State assistance) was evident.
• The court cannot determine the eviction application because several adult occupants were not served with termination notices, and their continuous residence for over a year creates a presumption of consent under section 3(4) of ESTA. The applicant has not established grounds for eviction under sections 8 or 9 of ESTA at this stage.
• The court orders the Municipality, Department, and applicant to engage meaningfully with occupants within two months, submit a supplementary report by 31 July 2024, and sets deadlines for supplementary affidavits and re-enrollment for hearing on 6 November 2024. Costs are reserved.

Remedies

• Parties may deliver supplementary heads of argument dealing only with additional matters, with the applicant required to submit 15 days before the hearing and respondents 10 days before
• The court reserved costs until the final determination of the matter
• The matter was provisionally re-enrolled for 6 November 2024 for further argument, pending confirmation via a notice of set down after the applicant supplements its papers
• The court directed the Municipality, Department, applicant, and respondents (including adults in cottages 1, 3, 4, 6, and the supervisor's cottage) to engage meaningfully regarding suitable alternative accommodation and emergency accommodation options for the respondents within two months, with a supplementary report due by 31 July 2024
• The applicant was granted leave to supplement its papers on or before 31 August 2024 after the required engagement period

Legal Principles

Precedent Name

• Miradel Street Investments CC v Mnisi and others
• Diedericks v Univeg Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Heldervue Estates
• Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 6. Secondly, I am not satisfied on the information before me that there has been meaningful engagement regarding suitable alternative accommodation for all of the affected occupants with the relevant State parties.2 In this regard, the report submitted by the Municipality is dated August 2022 and was compiled on the strength of the information contained in the founding affidavit. The answering affidavit was delivered in November 2022 and there are material issues that are disputed including regarding earnings. While the timing is not on its own necessarily problematic, in context of this case problems do arise. The earnings are disputed and materially different information manifests from the answering affidavit and the probation officer's report dated October 2022, yet the content of the Municipal report is at least party informed by the information in the founding affidavit. There are other difficulties. The respondents dispute the Municipality's claim that they have no wish to be or are not registered on the housing database and the consultation that ensued between the Municipality and the respondents did not include all affected respondents and their family members. Moreover, there is no suggestion on the papers that there has been any engagement, whether with the applicants or the State parties, regarding the possible invocation of State assistance to the occupiers through section 4 of ESTA regarding on or off site developments. To that end, the Department would also need to be involved.
• 5. First, in the report delivered to Court in terms of section 9(3) of ESTA, the probation officer pointed out that amongst the persons living on the property in the five affected households are various adults who have not been served with termination notices. There are several adults so affected who are identified in the probation officer's report and mentioned in the answering affidavit. I am mindful that the applicant cited the thirteenth respondent as all other persons who occupy the cottages. But it is clear from a consideration of the papers that the applicant did not terminate any of these adult persons' rights of residence. Moreover, on the information before me it appears that at least most and possible all have been continuously and openly residing on the property for a period of a year before proceedings were instituted, and in consequence are presumed to have consent to do so.1 Each adult is sought to be evicted. In the circumstances, the applicant has not, at least at this stage, made out a case for their eviction whether under section 8 or section 9.