Piketberg Sunrise Farm (Pty) Ltd and Another v Menas and Others

The Menas family resided on Klipheuwel Farm in Piketberg from September 2011 after Mr Niklaas Menas commenced employment as a general worker. Their residence was linked to his employment and they qualified as occupiers under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). Mr Menas sustained a work-related shoulder injury and his employment was terminated on 1 July 2020. The applicants contended that his right of residence terminated with his employment. The respondents disputed that the housing benefit was clearly or fairly linked to employment and alleged unfairness in the housing and employment agreements, which were signed shortly before termination and without proper explanation or copies. Notices in terms of section 8 of ESTA were served, followed by eviction proceedings. The magistrate granted an eviction order despite evidence that the family had lived on the farm for about 13 years, were unemployed, had a minor child, and had no alternative accommodation, with the municipality confirming that none was available. The matter came before the Land Court on automatic review under section 19(3) of ESTA.

The eviction order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the magistrate’s court with directions to reconsider compliance with the just and equitable requirements of ESTA and to consider ordering mediation or further settlement discussions between the parties.

The case reinforces the principle that eviction under ESTA requires both procedural and substantive justice. It underscores that magistrates must meaningfully engage with all section 11(3) factors, particularly fairness of agreements and the risk of homelessness, and may not rely solely on procedural compliance or shift responsibility to municipalities. It affirms the protective purpose of ESTA for vulnerable occupiers.