1 | Page
IN THE LAND COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT RANDBURG
Case number: LanC 2025 – 149202
Magistrate Court Case No.: 594/2023
Before: The Honourable Acting Judge Montzinger
Delivered: 15 December 2025
In the matter between:
HORSESHOE INVESTMENTS 0023 CC First Applicant
ANDRE ADRIAAN BADENHORST Second Applicant
and
JASON SMITH First Respondent
SOPHIA SMITH Second Respondent
AND ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS RESIDING WITH
OR UNDER THE 1ST TO 2ND RESPONDENTS ON THE
FARM KNOWN AS JAKKALSFONTEIN FARM,
Third Respondent
(1) REPORTABLE: Yes☐/ No ☒
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES: Yes☐ / No ☒
Date: 15 December 2025
2 | Page
MALMESBURY, WESTERN CAPE
SWARTLAND MUNICIPALITY Fourth Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Fifth Respondent
________________________________________________________________
REVIEW ORDER
IN TERMS OF SECTION 19(3) OF ESTA
______________________________________________________________
Montzinger AJ:
[1] This matter serves before me on automatic review in terms of s 19(3) of ESTA,
following an order granted by the Malmesbury Magistrates’ Court on 27 May 2025
under case no 594/2023. The magistrate made a written settlement agreement
an order of court, and further granted orders directed at the fourth and fifth
respondents, including:
1.1. the sale of Erf 1140, Abbotsdale by the fourth respondent (through its
developer) to the fifth respondent;
1.2. the purchase of Erf 1140 by the fifth respondent in terms of s 4(1) of ESTA
for the benefit of the first to third respondents; and
1.3. an obligation on the fourth respondent to ensure that Erf 11 40 is made
available for occupation by the first to third respondents on or before 30
August 2025.
3 | Page
[2] The order is, in substance, an eviction order under ESTA, because the
settlement agreement regulates how the first to third respondents should vacate
the applicants’ farm and provides further for their eviction by the Sheriff should
they not vacate.
[3] The fourth respondent (Swartland Municipality) and the fifth respondent (the
Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development) were cited as
parties in the proceedings. The settlement agreement identifies the first and
second applicants and the first to fifth respondents to be affected by the terms of
the settlement agreement.
[4] The signature page of the settlement agreement contained in the record
reflects execution on behalf of the applicants and by the first to third second
respondents. The agreement nevertheless provides for execution in counterparts
and states that it will not be effective until each party has executed at least one
counterpart. The record before this Court contains nothing to suggest that the
fourth and fifth respondents dispute that they are bound by the magistrate’s court
order granted against them, nor anything suggesting that the Magistrate granted
the order without full knowledge and appreciation of the rights and obligations of
all parties.
[5] I have had regard to the record, including the supplementary affidavit filed in
February 2025 describing the process that preceded the settlement agreement,
including postponements and repeated engagement aimed at securing
alternative accommodation, and the delays encountered in that process. The
settlement agreement itself records meaningful engagement involving the first to
4 | Page
fifth respondents and records that the first to third respondents received legal
advice and concluded the settlement freely and voluntarily.
[6] Having considered the record as a whole, I am satisfied that the Magistrate’s
Court order should be confirmed on automatic review.
[7] It is, however, notable that aspects of the Magistrate’s Court order are unclear
or not fully particularised as paragraph 2 requires the sale of Erf 1140, Abbotsdale
by the fourth respondent to the fifth respondent, but without detail on how the sale
is structured, when it will be concluded, or the milestones for implementation; and
paragraph 4 requires the fourth respondent to make the erf available for
occupation by 30 August 2025.
[8] The magistrate’s court order was granted in May 2025. The automatic review
is only finalised during December 2025. It is therefore conceivable that the dates
contemplated in the settlement agreement and the magistrate’s court order are
no longer viable. The settlement agreement also expressly makes its operation
subject to confirmation on automatic review in terms of s 19(3) of ESTA.
[9] The magistrate’s court order (paragraph 4) plainly contemplated a lead time
for the fourth respondent to make Erf 1139 available for occupation. In order to
preserve that lead time in a practical manner, and without disturbing the
remainder of the magistrate’s court order, it is just to adjust that date.
I therefore issue the following order:
1. The Malmesbury Magistrates’ Court order granted on 27 May 2025 (case
no 594/2023) is confirmed, subject thereto that paragraph 4 of the
Magistrate’s Court order is substituted with the following: