Alfred Pietersen v Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd

The appellant, Alfred Pietersen, was employed by the respondent prior to 1997 and, by virtue of that employment, was granted the right to reside on the respondent’s farm, thereby acquiring occupier status under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 67 of 1997 (ESTA). His employment was terminated on 3 March 2008 following a disciplinary enquiry for absconding from work, which he did not challenge. Despite demands to vacate, he remained on the farm rent-free for several years. The respondent sought and obtained an eviction order in the Worcester Magistrate’s Court in September 2013. Pietersen appealed, contending that at the time of termination of his employment he was permanently unable to supply labour due to disability and was therefore protected against eviction by section 8(4)(b) of ESTA.

The appeal was dismissed. The eviction order was upheld, with amended dates for vacating the premises and execution of the eviction. No order as to costs was made.

The case clarifies the evidentiary burden on occupiers seeking protection under section 8(4)(b) of ESTA, particularly the requirement to properly prove permanent disability. It also affirms that inadmissible or unsubstantiated medical certificates cannot ground statutory protection against eviction. Additionally, the judgment illustrates how section 10(1)(c) operates independently to justify eviction where there is a fundamental and irreparable breakdown in the social relationship between occupier and landowner.