Joosten v Dlamini

The respondent, Mzokufa Dlamini, a 63-year-old man residing on Sand Spruit farm in KwaZulu-Natal, faced eviction proceedings initiated by the applicant, Andre Joosten, the farm owner. The applicant had previously obtained an eviction order in the magistrates’ court, which was set aside on automatic review due to non-compliance with ESTA requirements. A subsequent eviction application was again opposed by the respondent, who raised a point in limine that he was a labour tenant under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996. The matter was transferred to the Land Claims Court. After numerous delays and attempted withdrawals by the applicant, the matter proceeded to trial in the applicant’s absence. The respondent led uncontested evidence showing that he and his family had lived and worked on farms for generations, that he had provided labour in exchange for rights to reside, crop, graze cattle, and bury family members, and that these rights formed a material part of his remuneration over decades.

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

The case affirms the protective purpose of the Labour Tenants Act and illustrates the Land Claims Court’s willingness to determine labour tenant status even in the absence of the landowner where evidence is uncontested. It clarifies that a parent’s labour tenancy need not have been on the same farm as the respondent’s residence. The judgment also underscores strict compliance with procedural rules governing withdrawal of cases and demonstrates that dilatory or abusive litigation conduct by landowners can justify adverse costs orders in the Land Claims Court.