The appellant, John Mosehla, was employed on a farm operated by the respondent, Sancor BK, and resided on the farm with his family. A written employment contract effective from 1 March 1997 provided for a cash salary, rations, housing on the farm, and grazing rights for cattle. After alleged misconduct and breach of contract, Mosehla was dismissed in June 1997 and was required to vacate the house. He refused to do so. Sancor instituted eviction proceedings in the magistrates’ court and applied for summary judgment. Mosehla opposed the application, alleging that he was a ‘labour tenant’ under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 and therefore protected against eviction, and that he had applied for land rights under the Act. The magistrates’ court and the Transvaal Provincial Division granted summary judgment against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld with costs. The orders of the Transvaal Provincial Division and the magistrates’ court were set aside. Summary judgment was refused, the appellant was granted leave to defend the action, and the costs of the summary judgment application were ordered to be costs in the cause.
The case is significant for clarifying how courts must approach alleged labour tenant status in summary judgment proceedings. It affirms that statutory land reform rights cannot lightly be overridden by employment contracts and emphasises a protective, holistic interpretation of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act. The judgment reinforces the principle that summary judgment should not be granted where bona fide statutory defences based on land reform legislation are raised.