Lee v Van Rensburg

The respondent, Petrus Johannes Merwe van Rensburg, acting as the person in charge of the farm Bosjesmans Valley ("Klippiesbaai"), applied for the eviction of the appellant, Franco Lee, under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). Lee had been employed as a general labourer and was entitled to reside on the farm by virtue of his employment. After the farm was purchased by Sandrivier Wingerde (Edms) Bpk and Van Rensburg became farm manager, Lee refused to sign a new employment contract, absented himself from work, and was dismissed following a disciplinary enquiry for unauthorised absenteeism. Lee was given written notice to vacate the farm within 30 days but failed to do so. The eviction application was personally served on Lee and on the relevant municipality and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. Lee did not oppose the application. The Worcester Magistrates Court granted an eviction order by default, which was confirmed on automatic review by the Land Claims Court. Lee then appealed against the eviction order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The eviction order was confirmed, subject to an amended timetable requiring the appellant to vacate the farm by 31 January 2017, failing which the sheriff was authorised to evict him on 7 February 2017.

The case reaffirms that eviction proceedings under ESTA may proceed on an unopposed basis where proper service and statutory requirements are met. It confirms that courts are not obliged to await a probation officer’s report indefinitely and clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in unopposed ESTA matters. The judgment also underscores professional standards expected of legal representatives in land reform litigation and the circumstances in which costs may be awarded despite ESTA’s general approach to costs.