Pieters and Another v Stemmet and Another

The first appellant (Mr Pieters) began residing on the first respondent's property in 1988 following his employment by the second respondent (the first respondent's father) as a gardener. The property is Portion 81 of the Farm Joostenberg Vlakte 728, one of several smallholdings in Joostenberg Vlakte Smallholdings near Cape Town. The first appellant retired in 2012 due to ill health, but both appellants (Mr and Mrs Pieters) continued living on the property with consent. In 2014, ownership transferred from the second respondent to the first respondent (Mr Stemmet). The appellants occupied a modest two-room dwelling with their two minor grandchildren (in foster care), paying no rent but covering electricity costs. They had lived there for approximately 30 years. On 13 September 2018, the respondents instituted eviction proceedings under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE). The appellants opposed, arguing ESTA applied and they qualified as occupiers under ESTA. They launched a separate application to confirm and enforce their ESTA rights. The Magistrates' Court dismissed the ESTA application and granted an eviction order under PIE. The appellants appealed the ESTA dismissal to the Land Claims Court, which dismissed the appeal, finding the property fell within a township and was not designated for agricultural purposes, thus ESTA did not apply.

• Whether the property falls within the definition of a township for purposes of section 2(1) of ESTA
• Whether land situated within a township but designated for agricultural purposes in terms of any law falls within the ambit of ESTA
• The interpretation of 'designated for agricultural purposes in terms of any law' in section 2(1)(a) of ESTA
• Whether rural zoning under the City of Cape Town's Development Management Scheme constitutes designation for agricultural purposes
• Whether the appellants qualify as 'occupiers' entitled to ESTA protections

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Land Claims Court was set aside and replaced with: (a) the appeal is upheld with costs; (b) the order of the magistrates' court is set aside and replaced with: (i) the property registered as Portion 81 of the Farm Joostenberg Vlakte 728 is subject to ESTA; (ii) the appellants as long-term ESTA occupiers are entitled to the protections under ESTA; (iii) no order as to costs in the magistrates' court.

Land situated within a township but zoned 'rural' under a municipal development management scheme is 'designated for agricultural purposes in terms of any law' for purposes of section 2(1)(a) of ESTA, thereby falling within ESTA's ambit. The term 'designated' means officially conferring a specified status, which is accomplished through zoning that has legal effect under SPLUMA and municipal planning by-laws. Rural zoning, which permits agricultural use as a primary use, constitutes designation for agricultural purposes. The distinction between rural and agricultural zoning is artificial for ESTA purposes where both permit agricultural use. Actual or intended agricultural use is irrelevant; what matters is official designation through legal instruments such as zoning. ESTA must be interpreted purposively to afford occupiers the fullest possible protection of their constitutional rights to security of tenure, protection from arbitrary eviction, and access to adequate housing. Occupiers residing on such land with the landowner's consent qualify as 'occupiers' under ESTA and are entitled to its protections, requiring termination of their rights in accordance with ESTA before eviction proceedings may be instituted.

The Court noted that properties zoned agricultural under the DMS may also be used for non-agricultural purposes such as telecommunication stations, indicating that zoning alone does not strictly determine land character (para 28). The Court observed that the DMS expressly permits a wide range of non-agricultural uses—including mining—on land zoned as agricultural (para 30). The Court cited with approval the broad statement from Mkangeli v Joubert that ESTA protects 'a particular class of impecunious tenant on rural and semi-rural land' and that the Legislature intended 'extensive limitations on any right to seek the occupiers' eviction from that land' (para 31). The Court noted that section 2(2) of ESTA creates a presumption that land falls within ESTA's scope unless the respondent proves otherwise, though the overall burden remains on the occupier invoking ESTA (para 12). The Court described the appellants' living conditions in detail, including their modest two-room dwelling, outdoor pit toilet, and limited pension income, contextualizing the vulnerability ESTA is designed to address (para 6).

This judgment provides important clarification on the scope of ESTA's application, particularly regarding the interpretation of section 2(1)(a). It establishes that land zoned 'rural' under municipal planning schemes ordinarily constitutes land designated for agricultural purposes for ESTA purposes, thereby bringing such land within ESTA's protective ambit even when located within a township. The judgment reinforces the principle that ESTA must be interpreted purposively to afford vulnerable occupiers the fullest possible constitutional protection. It clarifies that actual or intended agricultural use is irrelevant to the determination of whether land is 'designated for agricultural purposes'—the focus is on official designation through legal instruments such as zoning. The case provides important guidance on the interplay between municipal planning law (SPLUMA and local development management schemes) and ESTA. It also confirms that neither lack of current agricultural use nor an intention to develop land for other purposes can override the legal designation conferred by zoning. This strengthens tenure security for occupiers on rural and semi-rural land, preventing landowners from circumventing ESTA protections by arguing functional distinctions between rural and agricultural zoning.