P4 Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Unknown Persons at Portion 2 of the Farm Welgedacht 3349 G.S., Normandien and Others

P4 Boerdery (Pty) Ltd acquired Portion 2 of the Farm Welgedacht in October 2023, having leased it since 2022 for commercial crop farming. The late J Zwane, a former farm worker, had resided in a homestead on the farm and retired in 2017. He passed away in 2020. His wife had left the farm prior to 2017 to live with their daughter, the second respondent Thoko Radebe, in Dannhauser. After Zwane's death, the applicant alleged the homestead remained unoccupied and deserted. In April 2024, the applicant discovered Zwane family members (grandchildren) on the farm, occupying the homestead and grazing cattle. The applicant sought their eviction. The second respondent and her mother had filed a labour tenancy claim under case number LCC 271/2022 under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996. The respondents claimed Zwane had been a labour tenant since the late 1950s, that family members regularly stayed at the homestead to tend cattle, and that they maintained continuous occupation and use of the land.

• Whether the respondents were entitled to occupy the homestead and graze cattle on the farm pending determination of the labour tenancy claim
• Whether the applicant was entitled to interim relief restoring vacant possession of the homestead
• Whether the respondents' occupation constituted spoliation or unlawful deprivation of possession
• The proper interpretation and application of section 14 of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996, which prohibits eviction of labour tenants while an application is pending
• The balance between protecting the status quo ante and preserving the respondents' alleged labour tenancy rights pending final determination

The court made an interim order pending final determination of case LCC 271/2022, interdicting the first and second respondents from living permanently in the homestead but permitting them to occupy it for specified periods (Friday to Monday, Monday to Wednesday, or Wednesday to Friday, with at least two weeks between visits) for the purpose of tending their cattle. Occupation was limited to a maximum of two males and one female, subject to emergencies requiring more attendants. The applicant was prohibited from inhibiting the respondents' cattle from grazing in their current area. Either party could approach the court on five days' notice to vary the order. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The order was stated to be not reportable and of no interest to other judges.

Where a labour tenancy claim is pending under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996, section 14 of that Act prohibits eviction of the alleged labour tenant or associates while the application is pending. An applicant landowner seeking interim relief to restore vacant possession must demonstrate a prima facie right, but this right will not extend to complete exclusion where there is evidence of continued exercise of rights (such as possession of keys and presence of personal effects) and where such exclusion would prejudice the potential outcome of the labour tenancy proceedings. Courts may craft interim orders that balance the landowner's right to prevent establishment of permanent residence (which could prejudice determination of contested occupation rights) with the alleged labour tenant's right to continue exercising limited occupation rights (such as periodic attendance to tend livestock) pending final determination.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) If proven that the previous owner (D Adendorif) told Zwane's wife to vacate after his death, this would contravene the clear provisions of the Labour Tenants Act, provided he had notice of the application. (2) If proven that the applicant erected a fence and moved livestock from an allocated grazing area, this too would contravene the Labour Tenants Act, provided the applicant was aware of the application. (3) The court noted it was unnecessary to engage the question of continued grazing in relation to an ESTA (Extension of Security of Tenure Act) occupier, focusing only on how cattle could be properly tended while grazing pending resolution of the labour tenancy dispute. (4) The court observed that if any respondents are successful in the labour tenancy claim, they will be entitled to the rights which come with it, including the right to graze their cattle, and this should not be jeopardized until finalization of the case.

This case illustrates the careful balancing required by courts when dealing with competing land rights pending determination of labour tenancy claims under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act. It demonstrates the protective provisions of section 14 of the Act, which prevents eviction while applications are pending, and shows how courts can craft interim orders that preserve both the status quo ante and the exercise of alleged rights without prejudicing the final outcome. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to craft practical, detailed interim relief that addresses the specific circumstances of the parties, including transport difficulties and the need to care for livestock, while preventing either party from establishing facts on the ground that would prejudice the final determination.