Court rules on farm worker land rights

The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of a retired gardener and his wife living in Joostenbergvlakte. Illustration: Lisa Nelson

• The Supreme Court of Appeal has found that a smallholding in Joostenbergvlakte falls under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
• This means that a retired gardener and his wife, who have lived there for 37 years, have a right to stay on the land.
• The landowners have tried to evict them. The eviction process will now be more complicated because it will have to comply with ESTA.

The Supreme Court of Appeal has found that a retired gardener 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).

The judgment will be important for people who live on land in farming areas near cities, where it is sometimes unclear whether ESTA applies. ESTA was established in 1997 to protect farm workers whose rights were insecure because of racist laws of the past.

The case revolves around a smallholding in Joostenbergvlakte, an agricultural area just outside Stellenbosch. Jacob Pieters and his wife started living there in 1988 when he was employed by the landowner as a gardener.

Pieters retired in 2012 but they continued living there. They currently live on the property with two grandchildren. 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 the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (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 landowners had correctly followed the eviction process required by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from an Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), and the Pieters family could therefore be evicted, the Court found.

But the family took the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where a full bench (Acting Judge Leonie Windell, Judge Pieter Meyer, Judge David Unterhalter, Judge Keoagile Matojane and Judge Raylene Keightley) ruled in the Pieters’ favour.

In terms of ESTA, land situated within or around a “township” is excluded from its ambit. So the Court first had to determine whether the land occupied by the Pieters constituted a township in terms of the law.

It was not disputed that the land had never been officially registered or proclaimed as a township in a Provincial Gazette. Because there is no uniform definition of township in South African law, the court had to consider definitions from several different laws.

The court found that “public space” was a key feature in each of these definitions. If there is public space, defined as “any open or enclosed area, such as a street or road, depicted on a general plan or diagram, intended for use by the general public and owned by or vested in the municipal council,” then the land in question is a township. Taking this approach, the land was in a township.

But if the land is designated for agricultural purposes, even though it is a township, ESTA may still reply. Here the Court stressed that it has an obligation to interpret any law in a manner that promotes the spirit and aims of the Bill of Rights.

Because the land in question had been zoned as rural, the Court found that it was equal to agricultural land, though the Stemmets argued that the land was earmarked for urban development.

The Court said that the attempt to distinguish between “rural” and “agricultural” was artificial. In the City of Cape Town’s Development Management Scheme, the line between rural and agricultural was often blurred and they shared many overlapping characteristics, the Court 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.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast