Loskop Landgoed Boerdery and Others v Petrus Moeleso and Others (In re: Petrus Moeleso and Others v Loskop Landgoed Boerdery and Others)

The applicants (landowners - Loskop Landgoed Boerdery and the Pieters) sought leave to appeal against a judgment concerning the grazing rights of occupiers (Moeleso and others). The landowners had unilaterally reduced the grazing rights of the occupiers without obtaining a court order. The original judgment found this reduction unlawful and ordered that alternate grazing be provided to the occupiers. The landowners had also instituted proceedings in the magistrate's court. The application for leave to appeal was filed late, but a condonation application was filed simultaneously and was not opposed.

• Whether a court order is required before an owner can reduce occupiers' grazing rights
• Whether the reduction of grazing rights without a court order constitutes unlawful conduct
• Whether the order for alternative grazing was properly granted on the available evidence
• Whether there is a conflict between this judgment and the judgment in Mthethwa v Bester regarding the need for court orders when altering grazing arrangements
• Whether the order for alternative grazing would interfere with pending magistrate's court proceedings

1. The applicants' late filing of the application for leave to appeal was condoned. 2. Leave to appeal was granted against paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the order made in the judgment dated 2 December 2020. 3. Costs of the application for leave were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

The reduction of occupiers' grazing rights by a landowner without obtaining a prior court order constitutes unlawful conduct, at least where the reduction is a simple deprivation rather than a move to alternative grazing land. Landowners cannot unilaterally alter or reduce the grazing rights of occupiers; they must seek court authorization before taking such action.

The court observed that there was sufficient similarity between this case and Mthethwa v Bester to cause confusion in the law, despite some factual distinctions. In Mthethwa, the cattle were moved to alternative land rather than simply deprived, and alternative land was actually made available, which was not the case in the present matter. The court suggested that a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeal would be necessary to resolve this potential conflict. The court also noted that there may not have been sufficient evidence to support the order for alternative grazing land, and that such an order might conflict with pending magistrate's court proceedings as it did not merely provide for temporary grazing arrangements.

This case is significant in South African land law as it addresses the procedural requirements landowners must follow when seeking to reduce or alter the grazing rights of occupiers under ESTA. It highlights the tension between landowners' rights to manage their property and occupiers' rights to security of tenure. The case reveals a potential conflict in jurisprudence between this judgment and Mthethwa v Bester on whether court orders are required before altering grazing arrangements, which requires clarification from a higher court. The judgment reinforces that unilateral action by landowners to reduce occupiers' rights without court authorization is unlawful, protecting vulnerable occupiers from arbitrary deprivation of their subsistence rights.