- The High Court ruled that social grants do not count as “income” when deciding whether a farm resident qualifies for protection under ESTA.
- Judge Mahon found that Masete, who survived solely on social assistance, was legally unemployed and her income fell below the prescribed threshold.
- Because she did not earn an income, the eviction was brought under the wrong law and was dismissed with costs.
What does it mean to “earn” a living? Can survival funded by the state ever be compared to income generated through work?
In Johannesburg on 24 November 2025, the High Court addressed these questions in the case of Selina Masete, a woman who has lived on Portion 78 of the Farm Doornspruit near Krugersdorp for more than four decades. Acting Judge D Mahon ruled that she could not be evicted because she did not earn an income under the law, surviving entirely on social grants.
The eviction application had been brought by property owners Rudolph Johannes du Toit and Plumari Ranch Hekpoort (Pty) Ltd under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
Masete opposed the eviction, arguing that her rights were protected by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA). ESTA safeguards long-term farm residents and requires specific legal procedures before eviction can happen.
Survival is not earnings
The main dispute in the case revolved around the meaning of “income” under ESTA. To qualify as an “occupier”, a person’s income must not exceed R13 625 per month. Masete stated in her affidavit that she was unemployed and relied solely on social grants. She confirmed this in affidavits from her adult children, which showed that the household had no other income.
The property owners challenged this, claiming that she should have provided bank statements or other proof from the South African Social Security Agency. But Judge Mahon was clear. “There is nothing inherently implausible in the respondent’s assertion that she is unemployed and dependent on social grants. No suggestion is made of any employment, informal or otherwise,” the judge said.
The High Court then addressed the important legal question of whether social grants could ever be considered “income”. Judge Mahon wrote, “The regulation contains no reference to transfers, subsidies or benefits that arise as a matter of statutory entitlement or social protection. In substance and legal character, a social grant is a statutory entitlement, not an ‘earning’.”
He emphasised that a wage comes from work, while grants exist to support those in vulnerable positions. “They are not remuneration, compensation or consideration for labour rendered. They are a form of non-contributory income support, provided on the basis of vulnerability, age, disability or foster-care responsibilities.”
Even if counted, grants fall short
Judge Mahon considered the hypothetical argument that social grants could be counted as income. He found that even the maximum combination of grants, a grant for adults plus all allowable child-related grants and care-dependency supplements, would still be below the statutory threshold.
“The statutory architecture makes it impossible for a person to exceed the ESTA income threshold solely through grants,” the High Court held.
ESTA governs, PIE does not
Because Masete did not earn income above the threshold, she qualified as an ESTA “occupier”. This had an immediate effect on jurisdiction, as eviction proceedings under PIE in the High Court could not continue. Judge Mahon stated, “This court’s jurisdiction is accordingly ousted. The present proceedings cannot be sustained.”
The property owners had failed to invoke ESTA, did not terminate her residency in accordance with Section 8 of the Act, and did not follow the required legal notice procedures. The eviction application collapsed entirely on these grounds.
The High Court ordered the applicants to pay Masete’s legal costs on scale B. Judge Mahon explained, “Although the applicants appear to have acted under a misapprehension regarding the applicability of PIE, the respondent has nonetheless been put to the expense of opposing proceedings that ought not to have been brought in this forum. Fairness, therefore, dictates that the applicants bear the costs.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
