Horseshoe Investments 0023cc and Another v Smith and Others (LanC2025/149202) [2025] ZALCC 52 (15 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: Land Claims Court South Africa: Land Claims Court You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Land Claims Court >> 2025 >> [2025] ZALCC 52 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Horseshoe Investments 0023cc and Another v Smith and Others (LanC2025/149202) [2025] ZALCC 52 (15 December 2025) Horseshoe Investments 0023cc and Another v Smith and Others (LanC2025/149202) [2025] ZALCC 52 (15 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZALCC/Data/2025_52.html sino date 15 December 2025 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 (1) REPORTABLE: Yes☐/ No ☒ (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Yes☐ / No ☒ Date: 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 1 ST TO 2 ND RESPONDENTS ON THE FARM KNOWN AS JAKKALSFONTEIN FARM, MALMESBURY, WESTERN CAPE Third Respondent 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 1140 is made available for occupation by the first to third respondents on or before 30 August 2025. [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 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: “ 4. That the Fourth Respondent ensures that Erf 1140 is made available for occupation by the First to Third Respondents on or before 30 March 2026.” 2.  In all other respects, the magistrate’s court order (including the settlement agreement made an order of court) remains unchanged. A MONTZINGER Acting Judge of the Land Court sino noindex make_database footer start