Boschbank Plaas (Pty) Ltd and L J Krynauw v B.P Mahlangu and J Mahlangu and Their Dependants

The first applicant, Boschbank Plaas (Pty) Ltd, was the registered owner of the farm Groenvlei (Boschbank) since 1993. The second applicant, L J Krynauw, was a director of the first applicant and conducted farming and eco-tourism business on the property. The first respondent, B.P Mahlangu, was the daughter of John Mahlangu who was employed by the previous owner, Dr Strauss. When the second applicant purchased the farm, he retained most employees including John Mahlangu and later employed the first respondent at her father's request. The first respondent was initially employed as a domestic worker in 1994 and permanently employed from May 2000, with a staff house provided as part of her remuneration package. The second respondent, Joyce Mahlangu, was the first respondent's sister who had previously worked and resided in Pretoria but returned to the farm after losing her employment, moving in with the first respondent after January 2005. The relationship between the second applicant and the first respondent deteriorated from December 2004, with disputes arising over the first respondent bringing cattle onto the farm without permission (the second applicant had converted the farm to a game reserve), refusing to sign employment contracts and salary advices, claiming payment for work not done, and refusing access to workers' ablution facilities. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted, and the first respondent was ultimately dismissed on 6 November 2005 after receiving a final written warning. The applicants sought eviction under ESTA.

• Whether the first respondent's parents occupied the premises as farm workers or labour tenants
• Whether the second respondent occupied the premises with her parents and was in Pretoria only for work purposes
• Whether the first respondent's right of residence arose solely from an employment agreement with the applicant
• Whether the second respondent was an authorized person in terms of section 6(3)(d) of ESTA
• Whether the second respondent had established a new dwelling on the land in terms of section 6(3) of ESTA
• Whether all the prerequisites for an eviction order under section 9(2) of ESTA had been complied with
• Whether it was just and equitable to grant an eviction order

1. The eviction order was granted. 2. The first and second respondents and all who hold occupation under them including their minor children and children in their custody were ordered to vacate the residence at Boschbank Farm on or before 10 August 2010. 3. The Sheriff of the court was authorized to remove the respondents and their dependants from the premises if they did not comply by 17 August 2010. 4. There was no order as to costs.

Where an occupier's right of residence on agricultural land arises solely from an employment agreement, that right may be lawfully terminated upon dismissal in accordance with the Labour Relations Act, provided the requirements of section 8(2) and section 9(2) of ESTA are met. For an eviction order to be granted under ESTA: (a) the occupier's employment must have been lawfully terminated; (b) proper notice of termination of residence must have been given; (c) in cases where the occupier resided on the land before February 1997, a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between the parties may justify eviction; (d) the procedural requirements including service on relevant authorities must be complied with; and (e) the court must be satisfied that it is just and equitable to grant the eviction order, considering factors such as availability of alternative accommodation and potential hardship. The existence of alternative accommodation where the occupier actually resides is a relevant factor in assessing whether eviction is just and equitable.

The court observed that matters cannot be delayed indefinitely due to the failure to file a probation officer's report, and that referral to oral evidence can enable parties to place relevant information before the court in the absence of such a report. The court also noted the extent of the breakdown in the relationship between the parties, evidenced by service of disciplinary hearing notices via the sheriff and the first respondent's refusal to participate in proceedings. The court noted that the second respondent's decision to terminate legal representation from the Middelburg Justice Centre at the direction of her brother Isaac Mahlangu, and her subsequent non-attendance at the final hearing, meant that no evidence was presented on her behalf regarding hardship or alternative accommodation.

This case illustrates the application of ESTA in circumstances where an occupier's right of residence arises solely from an employment relationship. It demonstrates the requirements for eviction under section 8(2) and section 9(2) of ESTA, including the need to establish lawful termination of employment, proper notice, and consideration of just and equitable factors. The case also addresses the distinction between labour tenancy and employment relationships, and the requirement for alternative accommodation in eviction proceedings. It highlights the importance of the breakdown of the employment relationship and the employer-employee trust relationship as grounds for eviction. The case shows that even where a probation officer's report is not filed, the court can proceed with oral evidence to determine issues of hardship and alternative accommodation.