What is of importance is that . . .  in the present matter the right of the owners to possession of their property and to an order of ejectment against an unlawful occupier are limited by the provisions of ESTA.  Thus, reliance on the common law does not exonerate the owners from compliance with the provisions of s 8 of ESTA, to mention but one section. I have already dealt with the requirements of s 8 and it is not necessary to do so again.  The LCC did so too and found ‘that section 9(2)(a) was complied with as the principal reason for termination is that the applicants need the land for further development.’ It also found that s 9(2)(b) had been complied with in that ‘the occupiers had not vacated the land within the notice period.’

Mpati P in Molusi v Voges NO (1008/13) [2015] ZASCA 64 (08 May 2015) at para [43].