- The Land Court ruled that denying access to water, education and housing violates occupiers’ rights.
- Judge Montzinger found that the conditions on the farm amounted to ongoing infringements of dignity.
- The court ordered restoration of water, school transport access and protection of grazing and housing rights.
Every morning, children on a Mpumalanga farm walked several kilometres to school, not because there was no bus, but because someone had decided it was no longer allowed through the farm gate.
That decision, along with the cutting off of clean water and the blocking of home repairs, has now been overturned by the Land Court. Acting Judge A Montzinger found that the farm owner’s conduct violated the families’ dignity and could not be used as a tool to push them off the land.
Masotha Hezekia Ngwenya, Dungezula Danyela Nzima and Zakhele Vilakazi brought the application on behalf of their families, who have called Farm 412 Kolwani home for generations. They turned to the court after their access to clean water was cut off, the school bus was barred from entering the farm, and their attempts to repair their crumbling homes were blocked. They told the court that these conditions had made everyday life unsafe and stripped them of their dignity.
Background and parties
Ngwenya, Nzima and Vilakazi represent families with deep roots on the Kolwani farm. Their parents worked and lived on the land, and the families have remained there across generations. Under previous owners, they were permitted to keep livestock, cultivate land, draw water from a borehole and send their children to school on a bus that came directly to their homes.
The farm is now owned by Grow and More Pty Ltd. Marthinus Hermanus Stapelberg and Van Schalkwyk Stapelberg are directors of the company and were involved in the decisions that gave rise to the dispute. The company attempted to relocate the families to alternative land, but the families refused to go.
The court found that once the families refused to leave, their living conditions were steadily eroded through a series of restrictions targeting their water supply, their children’s schooling and their homes.
Urgency and ongoing harm
The respondents argued that the matter was not urgent, pointing to the fact that the disputes had dragged on for years. The court rejected this argument, finding that the harm was ongoing and was affecting the families’ most basic rights every single day.
Judge Montzinger held, “It cannot be that an applicant is denied recourse by a court merely because there was a long delay… where the infringement of constitutional rights like dignity… is implicated.”
The court found that every day, children were made to walk long distances to school and families were left with no choice but to drink from unsafe water sources; their rights were being violated afresh.
School transport and access to education
For years, a school bus had come directly to the children’s homes on the farm, picking them up at their front doors. Then, without warning, that arrangement ended. The children were left to make their way to school on foot, walking several kilometres each day. The court held that this was not a minor inconvenience. It was a direct interference with their right to education.
Judge Montzinger said, “The right to have the school bus access the farm… falls squarely within the concept of services as had been agreed upon.”
The respondents raised concerns about road conditions and safety, but the court found these did not come close to justifying the denial of the children’s right to education. The court ordered that the school bus be allowed back onto the farm.
Access to water and dignity
The applicants told the court that they had long relied on a borehole for their drinking water, but it had stopped working. With no alternative, they were left to draw water from the same sources used by livestock.
Judge Montzinger emphasised, “Each day that it persists compounds the affront to dignity and the risks to health.”
The court held that it did not need to determine who was responsible for the borehole failing. What mattered was that the families had lost access to clean water. The farm owner was ordered to restore access to safe drinking water within 30 days, with interim measures to be put in place immediately.
Housing conditions and repairs
The court also turned to the state of the applicants’ homes, which were described as deteriorating mud structures. The families said they had been blocked from carrying out even basic repairs.
Judge Montzinger observed, “I have great difficulty with the proposition that a landowner can prescribe what standard of accommodation is ‘adequate’.”
The court found that occupiers have the right to maintain and repair their homes to keep them safe and liveable. The respondents were interdicted from interfering with any such repairs, although the court did not extend this to the use of brick materials.
Grazing and livelihood rights
The applicants also sought to protect their grazing and cultivation rights, which they described as central to how their families survive. The court found that these rights had been established under previous ownership and had not been extinguished.
Whatever development plans the new owners had for the farm, Judge Montzinger held that those plans could not simply override the families’ established rights. The respondents were interdicted from interfering with the grazing areas and vegetable gardens the families depended on.
Constructive eviction
The court stepped back to consider the broader pattern of events and found that the changes on the farm were not coincidental or isolated. It concluded that the restrictions imposed on the families formed part of a deliberate and sustained effort to make life so difficult that they would have no choice but to leave.
Judge Montzinger referred to evidence indicating that a decision had been made that the families “will be better off elsewhere,” and found that the subsequent actions were consistent with that position.
The court was clear that the law does not permit landowners to drive occupiers off their land by making their lives unbearable. If a landowner wants to remove occupiers, there are proper legal processes that must be followed.
Order of the court
The Land Court confirmed the interim interdict and made it final. The farm owner was ordered to allow the school bus back onto the farm, restore access to safe drinking water and stop interfering with the families’ housing repairs and grazing rights. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
