A farmer’s application to evict the adult children of farmworkers employed on his farm Hammansdans outside Wellington in the Western Cape has been dismissed by Judge Zeenat Carelse in the Land Claims Court.

A lengthy, detailed Daily Maverick report notes Ashraf Mahomed, who represented the workers, said the judgment was a landmark ruling which in essence protected the rights of children and the right to family life.

The application was brought by First Realty (Krugersdorp) (Pty) Ltd. The farm and company have been owned by farmer Chris Hamman since 2011.

The eviction sought was in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997.

Hamman’s application relied on Sections 10 and 11 of the Act in seeking the eviction of 26 respondents residing in seven cottages on the farm. When he bought the farm, the cottages were allocated to seven of the respondents, being current or former employees, who had been living there for years with their families consisting of various combinations of spouses, adult dependents and non-dependents, and minor children.

Hamman alleges that there are presently 60 occupiers, which is disputed by the respondents.

In his founding affidavit, Hamman argued that each employee and ex-employee’s right to occupy was limited to the extent that each of them was only permitted to extend their rights of occupation to their spouses and/or minor and/or dependent children. (The term ‘dependent’ includes minor children and children who no longer attend school, but a tertiary institution.)

He also alleged that they had agreed to this in writing.

In her 28-page ruling, Carelse said: ‘The applicant erroneously seems to regard only the employees and ex-employees as occupiers in terms of (the Extension of Security of Tenure Act). The applicant therefore erroneously argues that the right of other occupiers to occupy is derived from employees’ or ex-employees’ right to occupy. This is incorrect. The adult non-dependent children are occupiers in their own right and cannot have their right of residence terminated by proxy through their parents. That right of residence must be terminated separately and directly according to Section 8 of (the Act).’

As occupiers in their own right, she said, the adult non-dependent children enjoyed full protection under the Act, notes the Daily Maverick report.

The terms of an agreement entered into only by the parents of the adult non-dependent children could not be extended to include these children.

Full Daily Maverick report

Judgment