- Land Claims Court overturns eviction order against several long-term Konstabel farm residents.
- Acting Judge Pieter Jacobs rules eviction process did not comply with the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
- Parties are required to enter mediation while residents stay on the farm.
Several families who have lived on the Konstabel farm near Laingsburg for decades will remain in their homes after the Land Claims Court overturned an eviction order and directed the parties into mediation.
Acting Judge Jacobs reviewed an eviction order granted by the Additional Magistrate for Laingsburg sitting in the Magistrate’s Court in Worcester and found that the legal requirements of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) had not been met.
The applicants were Calvin Francois, who manages the day-to-day farming operations on behalf of the trust that owns the farm, and farm manager Lodewiekus Theron. They sought the eviction of Johannes Windvogel and several other occupiers, together with all people residing with them on the property.
The Laingsburg Municipality and the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development were also cited as parties because of their responsibilities regarding alternative accommodation and land tenure.
Residents have lived on the farm for decades
The judgment records that some of the respondents have lived on Konstabel farm for between 14 and 60 years, while others were born there. Several are employed on neighbouring farms or by a local construction company, and argued that eviction would leave them homeless and could also cost them their jobs.
The trust purchased the farm in 2019 after the previous owner was liquidated. Although the new owners offered employment to former workers, the respondents declined to work for them, leading to disputes that eventually resulted in eviction proceedings.
Judge finds eviction process was legally flawed
Judge Jacobs concluded that the magistrate failed to conduct the enquiry required by ESTA before ordering the eviction. “The main issue in this review is whether the eviction order granted by the Magistrate complies with the provisions of ESTA and is just and equitable,” Judge Jacobs said. He found that it did not.
According to the judgment, the magistrate incorrectly treated the occupiers’ refusal to accept employment as a lawful basis for terminating their right of residence.
“The employment of the Respondents is separate from the right to reside and should be terminated separately. Accordingly, there was no lawful reason for the termination of the right of residence,” Judge Jacobs said.
The court also held that the magistrate failed to weigh the competing interests of the parties, including the severe hardship the occupiers would face if evicted.
Judge Jacobs found that all the respondents would be rendered homeless, while the applicants would suffer comparatively little prejudice if the occupiers remained on the farm pending a lawful process.
Court criticises fairness of the procedure
The court also found significant procedural defects in the eviction process. Judge Jacobs noted that ESTA requires occupiers to be given an effective opportunity to make representations before their right of residence is terminated. He accepted the respondents’ evidence that they had insufficient time and resources to obtain legal assistance before being required to leave.
“The lack of an ‘effective opportunity’ to make representations has been held to be a sufficient reason to dismiss an application for eviction,” the judge said.
He added that because the respondents had lived on the farm for many years and would likely lose both their homes and employment if relocated, they should have been afforded a proper opportunity to challenge the proposed termination of their residence rights.
Municipality and department ordered to assist
Instead of confirming the eviction, the Land Claims Court ordered the matter to mediation within six months.
The Laingsburg Municipality must provide updated information on suitable alternative accommodation and available housing assistance, while the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development must investigate whether secure tenure or other practical measures can prevent homelessness.
Pending the outcome of the mediation or any future court proceedings, the respondents are entitled to remain in their homes on Konstabel farm. If mediation fails, any future eviction application must be heard by a different magistrate.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
