Mokoena and Others v Lambrechts Familie Testamentere Trust and Others

Members of the Mokoena family, including siblings and their mother, instituted action proceedings in the Land Claims Court seeking relief under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 (LTA) in respect of Portion 3 of the Farm Morgenster 204 IS in Hendrina, Mpumalanga. They alleged that they and their forebears had resided on and used the farm for generations, exercising rights of residence, grazing and cropping in return for providing labour to successive farm owners. They sought a declaratory order that they are labour tenants under section 33(2A) of the LTA, clarification of their incidental land-use rights, and an order compelling the Director-General of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to process a land acquisition application allegedly lodged in 2001. The registered owner (a family trust) ultimately abided the decision of the court, while the farm manager opposed the claim, disputing labour tenant status and alleging that any rights had been terminated or waived, and alternatively that at least one plaintiff was merely an occupier under ESTA.

The court declared the plaintiffs to be labour tenants under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act in respect of the property and entitled to the attendant rights of occupation and use, subject to determination of the precise extent of certain rights (such as livestock numbers). The Director-General was ordered to process the plaintiffs’ land acquisition application in terms of the LTA. Relief was granted substantially in favour of the plaintiffs, though not in precisely the form or full extent originally sought.

This judgment reinforces the protective purpose of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act and affirms a contextual, substance-over-form approach to determining labour tenant status. It underscores the difficulty of establishing waiver or termination of labour tenant rights and highlights the constitutional imperative to secure tenure for vulnerable rural occupiers. The case is a further illustration of the Land Claims Court’s role in addressing long-delayed labour tenant claims and enforcing administrative accountability by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.