Moyeni v De Vries and Others NNO

Mrs Katie Moyeni, a 73-year-old pensioner, resided on Mooihoek Farm in Worcester since 1997 with her late husband, Mr Brown Moyeni, who had been employed on the farm since 1994 (by the first respondent and later by the De Vries Family Trust from 2015 as assistant manager). The appellant also worked as a seasonal worker for both the first respondent and the Trust. After Mr Moyeni passed away in March 2014, the appellant and her family continued to reside in the house allocated to them. Six months after his death, the Trust served her with a letter terminating her right of residence and requesting her to vacate the premises by 30 September 2015. When she did not comply, the Trust applied for her eviction. The Trust alleged she had never worked for it except once as a temporary seasonal worker, that her right to occupy was derived solely from her deceased husband's employment, and that she had breached housing rules (keeping a dog without permission, having lodgers, using vulgar language, and abusing alcohol). The Worcester Magistrates' Court granted an eviction order on 17 November 2017, which was confirmed by the Land Claims Court on review on 7 February 2018.

• Whether the appellant was a protected occupier in terms of section 8(4) of ESTA
• Whether the appellant's right to occupation was derived solely from her late husband's employment or whether she was an occupier in her own right
• Whether the appellant had committed breaches contemplated in sections 10(1) and 6(3) of ESTA sufficient to justify eviction
• Whether the Magistrate's Court and Land Claims Court erred in granting and confirming the eviction order

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Land Claims Court confirming the eviction was set aside in its entirety and substituted with an order setting aside the Magistrate's Court eviction order of 17 November 2017 and dismissing the application for eviction with costs. The costs for the application for condonation in relation to non-compliance with the Court's rules were ordered to be borne by the attorneys for the appellant.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Where an occupier asserts in their answering affidavit that they are a protected occupier under section 8(4) of ESTA based on their own employment (not derivative through a spouse), and the respondent admits this status (even if qualified) in their replying affidavit, the court is bound by this version under the Plascon Evans principle. (2) A protected occupier under section 8(4) of ESTA who has resided on land for 10 years and has reached age 60 may not be evicted unless the occupier has committed a breach contemplated in section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c). (3) Where an occupier strenuously denies alleged breaches of ESTA and insists they are a model occupier, their allegations cannot be rejected merely on the papers without compelling and uncontroverted evidence from the landowner. (4) ESTA is remedial legislation intended to protect vulnerable people, particularly women, whose tenure of land is insecure, and must be interpreted accordingly.

The Court made observations about the repeated missteps and flagrant disregard of the Court's rules by the appellant's attorneys in relation to the late noting of the appeal, late filing of the appeal record, and late filing of heads of argument. The Court noted that despite many admonitions concerning requirements for condonation applications, practitioners continue to display lack of knowledge or disregard for the rules. While granting condonation in the interests of justice for the elderly pensioner, the Court expressed its displeasure by ordering the appellant's attorneys personally to pay the costs of the condonation application. The Court also made obiter observations reinforcing the Constitutional Court's jurisprudence from Goedgelegen and Klaase that ESTA is "remedial legislation umbilically linked to the Constitution" and cited Daniels v Scribante regarding the particular vulnerability of women occupiers under ESTA, noting that "some of the poorest in our society continue to keep homes under the protection of ESTA" and that "occupiers under ESTA are a vulnerable group susceptible to untold mistreatment."

This case is significant in South African jurisprudence as it reinforces the protective purpose of ESTA for vulnerable occupiers, particularly elderly women. It clarifies the application of section 8(4) of ESTA regarding protected occupiers who have resided on land for 10 years and reached age 60, or who are former employees unable to supply labor. The judgment emphasizes that courts must properly apply the Plascon Evans principle in motion proceedings and be bound by the version of the occupier where facts are disputed on paper. It demonstrates that ESTA is remedial legislation umbilically linked to the Constitution that must be interpreted to protect vulnerable people whose land tenure is insecure. The case also reinforces that eviction of protected occupiers under section 8(4) can only be granted if breaches contemplated in section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) are proven with compelling evidence. The judgment serves as a warning that courts will protect the rights of vulnerable occupiers and will not allow evictions based on unproven allegations or disputed facts on paper.