Andre Ludwig Joosten v Mzokufa Dlamini

The respondent, Mzokufa Hinot Dlamini, a 63-year-old African male, resided at Sand Spruit farm in New Hanover, KwaZulu-Natal. His father Nkunzana Dlamini was a labour tenant on Bloemfontein farm owned by Jerry Maritz. The respondent was born on that farm and provided labour there, receiving rights to reside, crop and graze cattle as part of his remuneration. In 1974, after being expelled due to illness, the respondent relocated to the Joosten farm where his father had retired. The respondent provided labour on the Joosten farm, initially owned by Horgan Joosten and later transferred to the applicant Andre Ludwig Joosten. In consideration for his labour, the respondent received rights to reside, crop, and graze cattle, along with monetary wages. In 2001, the respondent was dismissed, and thereafter the applicant restricted his rights and refused to allow him to bury his wife on the farm. In 2002, the applicant obtained an eviction order from the Magistrate's Court, which was set aside on review. A second eviction application was filed in 2005, and the respondent raised a special plea that he was a labour tenant. The matter was referred to the Land Claims Court for determination of this issue.

• Whether the respondent qualifies as a 'labour tenant' in terms of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996
• Whether the applicant could withdraw the eviction application without the consent of the respondent or leave of the court after a trial date had been set
• Whether a costs order should be granted in circumstances where the applicant repeatedly sought adjournments and attempted to withdraw the application

The court declared that the respondent is a labour tenant in terms of section 33(2A) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

A person qualifies as a labour tenant under section 1 of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 if: (1) they reside or have the right to reside on a farm; (2) they have or had the right to use cropping or grazing land on the farm in consideration of which they provide or provided labour to the owner or lessee; and (3) their parent or grandparent resided on 'a farm' (not necessarily the same farm) and had the use of cropping or grazing land in consideration of which they provided labour. A Notice of Withdrawal filed in contravention of Rule 27 of the LCC Rules (i.e., after a trial date has been set without consent of all parties or leave of the court) is invalid and ineffective.

The court observed that while it is the practice in the Land Claims Court not to make costs orders unless there are exceptional circumstances, each case must be treated on its own merits. The court found that the manner in which the applicant handled the case, including repeatedly requesting adjournments and attempting to withdraw the application only after the final adjournment request was rejected, constituted exceptional circumstances. The court inferred that the application was initiated to harass the respondent, which justified a costs order.

This case demonstrates the application of the definition of 'labour tenant' under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996, particularly clarifying that the requirement for a parent or grandparent to have been a labour tenant can be satisfied if they were a labour tenant on any farm, not necessarily the same farm where the respondent resides. The case also illustrates the procedural requirements for withdrawal of applications under the LCC Rules, and demonstrates the court's willingness to award costs in circumstances where an applicant's conduct amounts to harassment or abuse of process. The judgment reinforces the protective nature of labour tenant legislation and the court's commitment to finalizing matters that have been unduly delayed by dilatory tactics.