SCA overturns farm owner’s bid to evict widow
A farm owner who attempted to evict pensioner Katie Moyeni (73), despite the fact she had stayed and worked at the farm since 1997, has failed in the SCA.
The Star reports despite her continued stay at the farm being protected under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act of 1997 (Esta), farm owner Johannes de Vries served her with an attorney’s letter saying she should leave.
Esta stipulates that people have right of residence on land they have occupied as workers for 10 years, provided they are 60 or can no longer work due to ill health, injury or disability.
De Vries relied on a clause in Esta stating that one can be kicked out on grounds of a serious breach.
He alleged that Moyeni had breached farm rules by keeping a dog without permission, having lodgers in the farmhouse, using vulgar language and abusing alcohol. She denied all these allegations and refused to leave.
The Worcester Magistrate’s Court ruled that Moyeni should be evicted because she never worked at the farm, only her late husband did.
The Land Claims Court confirmed that ruling.
But Moyeni appealed the matter in the SCA, says The Star report.
‘The magistrate erred in finding that there was never an employment agreement between the appellant and the (De Vries Family) Trust, as well as with the first respondent (De Vries),’ ruled SCA Justice Connie Mocumie.
‘In the replying affidavit, there was an admission on behalf of the trust, albeit with qualification, that the appellant had been employed on the farm. Significantly, the trust admitted that the appellant was a protected occupier in terms of section 8(4) (of Esta), but it insisted that she had committed breaches in terms of section 10(1)(c).’
Mocumie said it must be noted that Moyeni ‘strenuously denied that she had committed any breaches of Esta and insisted that she was a model occupier’.
‘Her allegations in this regard cannot be rejected merely on the papers filed of record. The respondents did not provide any compelling and uncontroverted evidence that might have entitled them to rely on the provisions of … Esta. There was therefore no basis on which the order the magistrate granted could be justified or for the confirmation thereof by the Land Claims Court.’
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
