Sterklewies (Pty) Ltd t/a Harrismith Feedlot v Msimanga and Others

The appellant, Sterklewies (Pty) Ltd, operated a feedlot and employed the three respondents, who resided in hostel accommodation on the employer’s farm. Following internal disciplinary proceedings, the respondents were dismissed in 2004. They unsuccessfully challenged their dismissals through processes under the Labour Relations Act, which were finally concluded in 2007 when the CCMA refused condonation. Despite dismissal, the respondents continued to occupy the hostel rooms. In January 2008 Sterklewies gave notice terminating their right of residence, contending that their right to occupy arose solely from their employment. Notices in terms of s 9(2)(d) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) were served, but the respondents refused to vacate. The magistrates’ court granted an eviction order. On automatic review, the Land Claims Court set aside that order. Sterklewies appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded. The order of the Land Claims Court was set aside and replaced with an order confirming the magistrate’s eviction order, subject to amendments clarifying that it applied only to the first and second respondents and declaring that the third respondent’s independent right of residence had been lawfully terminated, with any continued residence being derivative of his wife’s employment.

The case is significant for clarifying the evidentiary and pleading requirements under ESTA where an owner relies on s 8(2) to terminate an occupier’s right of residence based on dismissal from employment. It confirms that courts will confine themselves to the issues properly raised on the pleadings and that broader constitutional questions about ESTA will not be decided in the abstract. The judgment also provides important guidance on the meaning of ‘consent’ and ‘right of residence’ under ESTA.