Mashau Rashavha v HJ van Rensburg

The appellant, a former farm worker employed by the respondent, was retrenched in October 1998. Her right to reside on the respondent’s farm terminated in December 1998. The respondent applied for her eviction under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). A magistrate granted an eviction order, which was confirmed on review by the Land Claims Court after reconsideration of the applicability of section 8(4) of ESTA. The appellant was under 60 years old at the time of termination but had resided on the farm for approximately 20 years. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was granted by the Land Claims Court on limited grounds relating to comparative hardship. The appellant filed her notice of appeal late and sought condonation.

Condonation for the late filing of the appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies the strict application of section 8(4) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, confirming that courts may not extend clear statutory age requirements through purposive interpretation. It also affirms that prospects of success are the decisive factor in condonation applications and provides guidance on the balancing of comparative hardship under section 10(3) of ESTA.