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

The Menas family resided on Klipheuwel Farm from September 2011 after Niklaas Menas commenced employment as a general worker. Their residence constituted occupation under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). Mr Menas’s employment was terminated in July 2020 following a work-related shoulder injury. The applicants contended that the right of residence was an employment benefit that terminated with employment, relying on a housing agreement signed in March 2020. Mr Menas disputed the fairness and validity of the housing and employment agreements, alleging lack of understanding, absence of copies, and unfair terms. After serving notices under section 8 of ESTA and failing to secure voluntary relocation, the applicants obtained an eviction order from the magistrate’s court. The order came before the Land Court on automatic review under section 19(3) of ESTA.

The eviction order was set aside. 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 that eviction of ESTA occupiers requires both procedural and substantive fairness. It underscores the duty of courts to meaningfully engage with the fairness of agreements, the socio-economic vulnerability of occupiers, and the risk of homelessness, rather than relying on formal compliance or shifting responsibility to municipalities. The judgment affirms the protective purpose of ESTA and its alignment with constitutional values of dignity, equality, and social justice.