The appellant (Nederburg Wines) was the registered owner of a wine estate and employed the first respondent (Frans Nero) as an irrigator from July 1993 until December 2011. As a condition of employment, the first respondent and his family, including the second to fifth respondents (his adult children), resided on the property. The first respondent had an alcohol dependency and underwent rehabilitation treatment in 2008. He signed an agreement to submit to random alcohol testing. In December 2011 he tested positive for alcohol, a disciplinary hearing was held, he pleaded guilty, and his employment was terminated. He appealed internally and to the CCMA but withdrew the complaint after advice and concluded a settlement agreement. He was notified to vacate the premises by 30 September 2013 but failed to do so. The appellant also alleged that the second to fifth respondents engaged in unacceptable conduct including harassment, threats, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, making life unbearable for other lawful occupiers. The eviction application was unopposed. The probation officer's report, though requested, was inadvertently sent to the magistrates' court instead of the Land Claims Court and was not before the court a quo when it dismissed the application.
The appeal was upheld with no order as to costs. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order evicting the first to fifth respondents from the property. Execution was suspended for 90 days. The Drakenstein Municipality was ordered to provide temporary emergency accommodation within 60 days and to file a report with the Registrar of the Land Claims Court within 20 days after the expiry of the 90-day suspension period confirming whether such accommodation had been provided.
A probation officer's report is mandatory in all eviction applications under ESTA where section 9(2)(c) is relied upon, as required by section 9(3) of ESTA. A court should not determine an eviction application under ESTA without considering such a report, as it is decisive and valuable in assessing matters such as alternative accommodation, constitutional rights of affected persons, and potential undue hardship. Where a court of first instance fails to consider a mandatory probation officer's report and the appellate court is in the same position to consider it, the appellate court may exercise its powers under section 19 of the Superior Court Act 10 of 2013 to render the appropriate decision rather than remitting the matter, particularly where the interests of justice require finality and to avoid further costs and delay.
The Court noted that adult children of an employee who occupied property by virtue of the parent's employment have no independent legal right to occupy the premises once the employment ends. The Court commented that the irresponsible and delinquent behavior of the adult children, including harassment, threats, violence, and drug and alcohol abuse, cannot and should not be countenanced, and such behavior resulted in the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the appellant and the first respondent. The Court also observed that it was unnecessary to deal with the interpretation of the legal threshold prescribed in section 10(1)(c) of ESTA given the factual circumstances and the first respondent's lack of interest in remedying any fundamental breach or restoring the relationship with the appellant. The Court noted that the first respondent voluntarily withdrew his CCMA complaint after advice and settled the matter amicably, demonstrating his lack of interest in contesting the matter.
This case clarifies important procedural requirements under ESTA, particularly the mandatory nature of probation officer reports in eviction applications. It resolves conflicting Land Claims Court decisions on this issue and emphasizes the value and necessity of such reports in informing eviction decisions. The case also demonstrates the Supreme Court of Appeal's willingness to finalize matters in the interests of justice rather than remitting them, using its wide powers under section 19 of the Superior Court Act. It illustrates how courts must balance the property rights of landowners with the constitutional rights of vulnerable occupiers, particularly in the context of farm evictions, while also ensuring that eviction orders include conditions to prevent homelessness in accordance with constitutional obligations.
Explore 2 related cases • Click to navigate