In a comprehensive ruling on an eviction dispute, seen as a major victory for workers and families residing in farming communities, the Constitutional Court came up with four separate judgments on the matter.

The ruling brought legal certainty to the issue –farm dwellers seeking to challenge an eviction order should approach the SCA rather than the Land Claims Court when seeking legal recourse. 

The matter did the rounds of the Magistrate’s Court, the Land Claims Court and the SCA, which struck the matter off its roll, before getting to the top court.

It was complicated by the role of a third party, who had been given occupation of the evictee’s house by the owner and refused to budge despite an interim Constitutional Court order that he make way for the original occupant. He said he did not want to be joined in the matter.

The four judgments involved the interim relief granted in October 2015, (the reasons are set out in a majority judgment written by Justice Raymond Zondo along with a dissenting opinion by Justice Edwin Cameron); a decision on a contempt of court application brought by the evictee against the owner (unanimous judgment by Zondo); a decision on whether the occupier should be joined in the appeal proceedings (by Zondo), and a majority judgment granting leave to appeal, also written by Zondo.

Eviction appeal ruling

Joinder ruling

Contempt of court

Interim relief pending outcome of appeal

The judgment provided procedural clarity and might help to reverse years of jurisprudential precedent from cases brought before the Land Claims Court, Lawyers for Human Rights attorney Louise du Plessis is quoted as saying in a Business Day report.

The report notes the Constitutional Court decided to deal with the merits of the case itself in the interests of time, rather than sending the issue back to the SCA.

‘The SCA was … wrong in its conclusion in striking the matter off the roll. It should have held that the appeal lay to it. It also ought to have considered and determined the appeal on the merits,’ Zondo said.

The judgment concluded that the reasonable termination of employment required for the eviction order had not been proved.

Du Plessis said many of the precedents by the Land Claims Court had seemingly gone against the rights of occupiers, which the advocacy group believed was at odds with the original intention of legislation. ‘In a way we hope that these kinds of judgments (at the Constitutional Court) will push the jurisprudence more in favour of the occupiers,’ Du Plessis said.

Full Business Day report (subscription needed)

The SA National Civic Organisation (Sanco) welcomed the ruling‚ saying it has affirmed the protection of farm workers and families.

‘The historic ruling guarantees that the Land Claims Court will no longer endorse unlawful eviction orders but will ensure that the security of tenure of the most exploited and abused section of workers is protected‚’ said Sanco national spokesperson Jabu Mahlangu, according to a TimesLIVE report.

Mahlangu called for a review of cases of farmworkers who were left homeless before the judgment.

He said that the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs had an obligation to assist farmworkers with the review process as part of accelerating the reversal of the legacy of the infamous 1913 Land Act.

‘Land ownership is key to addressing poverty‚ unemployment and inequality as well as restoring the dignity of the landless and historically marginalised poor‚’ he stated.

Full TimesLIVE report