SCA rules in favour of farm worker’s land rights
The SCA has found that retired gardener Jacob Pieters and his wife can continue living on a smallholding in Stellenbosch because their land rights are protected under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (Esta).
A GroundUp report says the judgment will be important for people who live on land in farming areas near cities, where it is sometimes unclear whether Esta applies.
The case revolves around a smallholding in an agricultural area just outside Stellenbosch. Pieters and his wife started living there in 1988 when he was employed by the landowner as a gardener. He retired in 2012 but they continued living there with his family.
Their sole source of income is a SASSA old age grant of R1 700 per month.
But in 2014, the land was taken over by the owner’s son, Peter Stemmet. Four years later, Stemmet started eviction proceedings against the Pieters.
The Bellville Magistrate’s Court granted the eviction order, but the Pieters family appealed to the Land Claims Court, arguing that Esta applied to them and that they were therefore allowed to stay on the land.
Eviction proceedings would have to comply with Esta, they argued.
The Land Claims Court ruled against the Pieters, finding that Esta did not apply to this land. The court found the landowners had correctly followed the eviction process required by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from an Unlawful Occupation of Land Act and the Pieters family could therefore be evicted.
But the family took the matter to the SCA, where a full Bench (Acting Judge Leonie Windell, Judges Pieter Meyer, David Unterhalter, Keoagile Matojane and Raylene Keightley) ruled in the Pieters’ favour.
It found the protections of Esta are aimed at safeguarding security of tenure, the right not to be unjustly evicted, and the right to adequate housing.
Because the Constitutional Court had stressed that Esta was remedial legislation and its provisions must be interpreted to advance the rights of farm workers who are a vulnerable group, the SCA found that a rigid approach could not be sustained.
The court also stressed the importance of the fact that the Pieters family had resided on the property for more than three decades with the knowledge and consent of the owners.
The SCA found that Esta applied to the land, and the Pieters’ right of residence could only be terminated in terms of Esta.
The appeal was upheld with costs.
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.
