Browsing: Stellenbosch farm dispute

Koos Booysen, a farm worker who had lived on Bonfoi Farm for 40 years, obtained an urgent order restoring access to his house after returning from the hospital to find the locks changed. Farm owner Johannes van der Westhuizen attempted to challenge that order in the Western Cape High Court, arguing that the application should not have been heard urgently or without notice. The High Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the dispute must return to the Stellenbosch Magistrates’ Court, where the parties will argue whether Booysen is entitled to remain in the house. A dispute over a farm worker’s home in Stellenbosch reached the High Court in the Western Cape after a long-serving employee returned from the hospital to find himself locked out of the house where he had lived for decades. Koos Booysen told the court that he had worked on Bonfoi Farm for about 40 years and that the farm owner, Johannes van der Westhuizen, had provided him with housing as part of his employment. Booysen lived there with his late spouse and daughter. After he was hospitalised with a serious medical condition, he stayed with relatives so he could attend follow-up medical appointments and rehabilitation. When he returned to the farmhouse in June 2025, he discovered that the locks had been changed. Booysen said Van der Westhuizen told him he would not be allowed back into the property. Faced with being without a home, Booysen approached the Stellenbosch Magistrates’ Court on an urgent basis seeking an order restoring access to the house. The magistrates’ court granted the order on 23 September 2025, directing that Booysen be allowed back into the house while calling on Van der Westhuizen to return to court to explain why the order should not be made final. Farmer challenges order in High Court. Two days after the order was granted, Van der Westhuizen filed a notice of appeal in the High Court. He argued that the application should not have been heard urgently and that there had been no justification for hearing the matter without notice. Van der Westhuizen also disputed the basis for the order restoring access to the house, arguing that the property was owned by Bonfoi Wynlandgoed CC rather than him personally. Booysen opposed the appeal and argued that the magistrates’ court had not yet finally decided the dispute. High Court rules dispute must be decided in magistrates’ court Judge G da Silva Salie, with Acting Judge N Mayosi concurring, ruled that the High Court could not decide the matter because the magistrates’ court had not yet heard the full dispute. “The order appealed against was granted ex parte and expressly operates pending the return day of a rule nisi, by restoring the respondent’s possession of the property,” Judge Da Silva Salie said. “However, this is not a final order, and by its nature and structure, it is susceptible to discharge, variation or confirmation on the return day once the affected party is heard.” The court emphasised that the magistrates’ court still had to decide whether Booysen had been unlawfully deprived of his home on the farm. “The interim order is not a final pronouncement that the respondent had been in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property and that he had been dispossessed,” the judgment stated. High Court reinstates hearing date for dispute The High Court also dealt with a procedural issue that arose when the magistrates’ court postponed the case indefinitely while waiting for the appeal. Judge Da Silva Salie said that approach was incorrect. “An interim order cannot exist without a return day,” the court said. The High Court therefore replaced the earlier postponement order and directed that the matter proceed in the Stellenbosch Magistrates’ Court. Booysen may file a replying affidavit by 24 March 2026, and the court will hear the matter on 30 March 2026 to determine whether the order restoring access to the house should remain in place. The High Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Van der Westhuizen to pay the costs of the appeal. Conviction.co.za Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

What's Hot

Dentist awarded R250 000 after colleague claimed she sold her body for money

AI will not save broken supply chains – but it will expose deeper flaws

Deputy Minister Nel wants indigenous languages to become languages of jurisprudence

Browsing: Stellenbosch farm dispute

Farm worker finally returns home after being locked out of farmhouse

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

Dentist awarded R250 000 after colleague claimed she sold her body for money

AI will not save broken supply chains – but it will expose deeper flaws

Deputy Minister Nel wants indigenous languages to become languages of jurisprudence

Correctional Services was right to dismiss officer for depositing money into inmate’s account

Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

OUR PICKS

Judge dismisses bid to suspend attorneys over R23 million dispute, citing unfair investigation

Labour Court halts UCT consultation process that could defeat pending whistleblower trial

Legal Practice Council ordered to disclose records behind English-only admission exams

Subscribe to Updates

What's Hot

Browsing: Stellenbosch farm dispute