The reports arise from two separate but related complaints concerning three households residing on the Farm. Collectively, the investigations considered the rights of the occupiers under the Constitution and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA), their access to basic services, the conduct of the owner and person in charge of the Farm, and the obligations of organs of the state towards persons residing on privately owned farmland.

Investigation into the treatment and rights of the occupiers

The first report followed a complaint lodged by Elias Muller on behalf of the occupiers of the Farm against Dee’k Logistics CC, the owner of the Farm; Gaosupe Lawrence Dikokwe (Dikokwe), the sole member of Dee’k Logistics and person in charge of the Farm; and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR). The complaint raised several concerns, including restrictions on access to water and firewood; the disposal of animal carcasses near the occupiers’ residences; access to electricity; restrictions relating to traditional ceremonies and visitors; and broader concerns regarding the relationship between the occupiers and the owner and person in charge of the Farm.

The Commission found that ESTA protects the occupiers and are consequently entitled to the rights and protections afforded to occupiers under that legislation. The Commission found, amongst others, that:

• The allegation concerning the restriction of the occupiers’ established access to firewood was substantiated. The wholesale restriction of such access violated the occupiers’ established right to use the land as contemplated in section 6(1) of ESTA.
• An incident involving the disposal of an animal carcass near the occupiers’ residences was substantiated. The matter had, however, subsequently been addressed following an undertaking by Dikokwe that animal carcasses would not be disposed of near the occupiers’ residences again.
• The complaint that Dikokwe required notification before ceremonies were conducted on the Farm while failing to provide the occupiers with an effective means through which such notification could be given was substantiated. The Commission found that where the person in charge cannot be reached for purposes of notification, this cannot prevent occupiers from exercising their right to family life in accordance with their culture as protected by ESTA.
• The complaint concerning the historic lack of access to water had been resolved following the restoration of access to water in December 2025.
• The allegation that Dee’k Logistics or Dikokwe prevented the installation of electricity was not substantiated. In this regard, the Commission found that, as a matter of law, the consent of the landowner is not required for the installation of electricity at the residences of qualifying occupiers.

The investigation also raised concerns regarding the failure of DRDLR to engage in the matter meaningfully. The Commission found that this deprived the parties of an opportunity for the circumstances of the occupiers to be considered within the framework of section 4 of ESTA. While this provision does not require DRDLR to approve or fund a particular intervention, DRDLR ought reasonably to engage with the parties and consider whether an appropriate tenure or development intervention is available.

The Commission has accordingly recommended, amongst others, that:

• Dee’k Logistics and/or Dikokwe facilitate the occupiers’ access to firewood within 30 days;
• accessible official contact details be provided to the occupiers within seven days; and
• the parties engage periodically to address matters affecting their co-existence on the Farm.
• DRDLR should, within 60 days, engage with the occupiers, Dee’k Logistics and Dikokwe to assess the occupiers’ tenure and development needs and determine whether an intervention contemplated by section 4 of ESTA is appropriate and available;
• Within 90 days, DRDLR must provide the Commission with the outcome of that assessment.

Investigation into inadequate sanitation

The second report arose from a complaint lodged by Maria Motswapuleng on her own behalf and on behalf of the other occupiers of the Farm. The complaint was received during the Commission’s visit to the Farm on 24 February 2026 in connection with the first investigation. During its site inspection, the Commission observed that the three households shared two traditional pit toilets. The toilets were in a deplorable condition and posed an imminent risk of harm to users, particularly children. The occupiers also did not have an independent source of water and relied on the Farm owner for their water supply.

The Commission’s investigation established that Matlosana was aware of the sanitation needs of the occupiers but had failed to provide adequate sanitation. During the investigation, the Municipality provided differing explanations for why toilets had not been constructed, including challenges relating to landowner consent and insufficient funding. The Commission found the allegations against Matlosana to be substantiated. It found that Matlosana’s failure to provide adequate sanitation violated the occupiers’ rights to human dignity and access to adequate housing in terms of sections 10 and 26(1) of the Constitution. It further constituted a failure by Matlosana to fulfil its obligation to provide basic municipal services sustainably in terms of section 152(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The Commission emphasised that the responsibility of a municipality to provide basic services extends to people living on privately owned farmland. Financial constraints may affect the pace at which socio-economic rights are progressively realised, but they do not extinguish a municipality’s constitutional and statutory obligations.

The Commission further found that the withholding of consent by a landowner cannot, without more, prevent the provision of adequate sanitation to farm occupiers or relieve the state of its constitutional and statutory responsibilities. In the circumstances of this matter, however, the evidence did not establish that Dee’k Logistics or Dikokwe had contributed to the identified violations, as Matlosana had not engaged them regarding the construction of toilets for the occupiers. The Commission has consequently recommended that, within 90 days of receipt of the final investigative report and in consultation with Dee’k Logistics and Dikokwe, Matlosana provide adequate sanitation to the occupiers in accordance with the applicable minimum standards. Matlosana must thereafter report to the Commission on its compliance.

The two investigations highlight the particular vulnerability of persons residing on privately owned farms and the importance of respecting their constitutional and statutory rights. Private ownership of land does not extinguish the rights of lawful occupiers. Equally, the presence of persons on privately owned land does not relieve municipalities and other organs of state of their constitutional and statutory responsibilities towards those persons.

The Commission recognises that the rights and legitimate interests of farm owners must also be respected. ESTA requires a just and equitable balance between the rights of occupiers and those of landowners. Such a balance is best achieved through meaningful engagement, respect for the law and cooperation between occupiers, farm owners and organs of state, rather than through unilateral action. The Commission will monitor implementation of the recommendations contained in both reports and take further steps, where appropriate, in accordance with its constitutional and statutory mandate.

ENDS