The respondent owned a smallholding in Stellenbosch on which a cottage was situated. Mrs Magrieta Hattingh, an elderly former domestic worker of the respondent, lived in the cottage with her adult children, their spouses and grandchildren (the applicants). Mrs Hattingh had consent to reside on the land and qualified as an occupier under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). The respondent sought the eviction of the applicants (but not Mrs Hattingh), contending that they had no independent right to reside on the land and that Mrs Hattingh’s right to family life did not extend to adult, non-dependent children. The Magistrate’s Court dismissed the eviction, but the Land Claims Court and Supreme Court of Appeal upheld it, holding that section 6(2)(d) of ESTA limited family life mainly to spouses and dependants unless a specific cultural basis was proven.
Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was upheld. The orders of the Supreme Court of Appeal and Land Claims Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Land Claims Court to reconsider whether eviction of the applicants would constitute an unjustifiable infringement of Mrs Hattingh’s right to family life under section 6(2)(d) of ESTA, applying the correct balancing approach. No order as to costs was made.
This case is a leading authority on the interpretation of section 6(2)(d) of ESTA. It clarified that the right to family life for occupiers is not narrowly confined to spouses and dependants and must be assessed contextually through a balancing of rights. The judgment strengthened the protection of vulnerable occupiers and underscored the importance of dignity, family unity and South Africa’s social realities in land tenure disputes.