Jaftha Pekeur and Another v The Fruit Farm Group (Pty) Ltd

The Applicants (Jaftha Pekeur and Magrietha Pekeur) applied for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered on 17 December 2025 that granted their eviction from the farm Verlorenvlei. Mr Pekeur commenced employment on Verlorenvlei in 1996, while Mrs Pekeur began occupying the farm in 2005. The original judgment found that Mr Pekeur had committed a fundamental breach in terms of section 10(1)(c) of ESTA, warranting eviction. Mr Pekeur's residence on the farm flowed from his employment. The Applicants had alternative accommodation on Driefontein farm where they resided with Mr Afrika, and Mrs Pekeur earned a salary of R13,000 per month. Legal Aid South Africa had previously represented the Applicants but indicated they could not represent them in seeking leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was filed late on 16 February 2026, when it should have been filed by 16 January 2026. Mr Pekeur had also initiated review proceedings in the Labour Court which had been deemed to be withdrawn and had lapsed.

• Whether the application for leave to appeal filed out of time should be condoned
• Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the grounds of appeal raised
• Whether the court misinterpreted the Applicants' rights under section 8(4)(b) of ESTA
• Whether the court failed to consider the occupiers' constitutional rights to family life, dignity, housing, freedom and security of person, and privacy
• Whether the court erred in finding a written contract of employment existed linking Mr Pekeur's residence to his employment
• Whether the court wrongly concluded that the Applicants had alternative accommodation
• Whether the Labour Court proceedings were properly determined in terms of section 8(3) of ESTA

1. The Applicants' failure to file an application for condonation, and their late filing of the application for leave to appeal are condoned. 2. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 3. There is no order as to costs.

1. An applicant for leave to appeal is confined to the grounds of appeal set out in the application, and leave to appeal is granted on one or more of those grounds. 2. The test for leave to appeal under the Land Court Act 6 of 2023 section 31, read with Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 section 17, is whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. 3. Where an applicant raises constitutional rights as a ground of appeal in an ESTA matter, they must identify the relevant provision of ESTA and explain why consideration of the constitutional right would have altered the meaning of the provision or how it should have been applied on the facts. General invocations of constitutional rights are insufficient. 4. ESTA was enacted to give effect to constitutional rights including security of tenure, housing, dignity, family life, freedom, security and privacy, and must be interpreted on its terms. 5. Labour Court proceedings that have been deemed to be withdrawn and have lapsed are considered 'determined' for purposes of section 8(3) of ESTA. 6. The Land Court has discretion under rule 32(7) to condone both the failure to bring a formal condonation application and delays in filing applications where reasonable explanations exist.

The court observed that despite the failure of the application for leave to appeal, there was no reason to depart from the ordinary practice in the Land Court that costs orders are not made where an application is not abusive but merely ill-founded. This reflects a general approach in the Land Court to costs in ESTA matters that recognizes the socio-economic vulnerabilities of occupiers and the public interest nature of land tenure disputes. The court also implicitly commented on the quality of advocacy required in leave to appeal applications, noting throughout the judgment that the Applicants 'did not explain' various assertions, suggesting that bare assertions without substantiation are insufficient to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

This case demonstrates the Land Court's approach to applications for leave to appeal in ESTA eviction matters. It illustrates the application of the test for leave to appeal (reasonable prospects of another court reaching a different conclusion) and the court's requirement that applicants must substantiate their grounds of appeal with specific explanations of legal error. The judgment reinforces that ESTA itself is the mechanism through which constitutional rights to housing, dignity, and security of tenure are protected, and that general invocations of constitutional rights without specific application to ESTA provisions are insufficient. It also clarifies that Labour Court proceedings that have been deemed withdrawn and have lapsed are considered 'determined' for purposes of section 8(3) of ESTA. The case confirms the ordinary practice in the Land Court of not making costs orders in non-abusive applications. It further demonstrates the court's discretion under rule 32(7) to condone procedural irregularities where reasonable explanations exist, particularly in circumstances involving changes in legal representation.