Selsley Farm Trust v Mhlongo

The respondent, Simon Mhlongo, resided on Selsley Farm in Lions River, KwaZulu-Natal since 1953. He was born on a neighbouring farm Maritzdal in 1934 where his mother Violet Mhlongo was employed by Guy Kimber. When Guy Kimber and his wife moved to Selsley in 1953, the respondent and his mother moved with them. The respondent worked as a general labourer and driver, while his mother worked as a domestic worker. After Guy Kimber died (around 1986), his son Michael Kimber took over farming operations and continued to employ the respondent. The respondent was permitted to grow crops and graze cattle on the farm. Michael Kimber sold the farm in 1998 to Watson/Meander-Selsley Farm (Pty) Ltd, and the respondent stopped working in mid-1999 due to illness. The farm was sold again in 2004 to the appellant, Selsley Farm Trust. The respondent claimed to be a labour tenant under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 and sought a declaratory order to that effect.

• Whether the respondent satisfied all three requirements of the definition of 'labour tenant' under section 1 of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996
• Whether the respondent's cropping and grazing rights were granted in consideration for labour provided
• Whether the respondent's mother provided labour to the 'owner or lessee' of the farm as required by paragraph (c) of the labour tenant definition
• Whether the presumption in section 2(5) of the Act was applicable
• The proper interpretation and application of the definition of 'labour tenant' versus 'farmworker'

The appeal succeeded. The orders of the Land Claims Court in respect of both the main application and the counter application were set aside and replaced with the following: (a) The application is dismissed; (b) There will be no order made on the counter application; (c) There will be no order as to costs.

The binding legal principle established is that to qualify as a labour tenant under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996, a person must satisfy all three cumulative requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the definition. The presumption in section 2(5) that a person is not a farmworker only arises after it has been proven that the person falls within all three requirements of the labour tenant definition. Crucially, paragraph (c) requires that the parent or grandparent must have provided labour to the owner or lessee of the farm in consideration for cropping or grazing rights. 'Owner' is defined in section 1 as the registered owner as per the Deeds Registries Act. The onus rests on the claimant to prove they satisfy the definition of labour tenant; only once this is established does the burden shift to prove the person is a farmworker. Failure to prove any one of the three cumulative requirements results in the claim failing, regardless of whether other requirements are satisfied.

The Court made obiter observations regarding the trial court's finding that the respondent had not proven that cropping and grazing rights were exercised in consideration for labour (requirement (b)). Leach AJA stated that it was unnecessary to decide whether this finding was correct, as the claim failed on another ground (the failure to satisfy requirement (c)). The Court also noted that had the issue of who owned Maritzdal been properly investigated and pleaded, and had it been shown that Guy Kimber was the owner of that farm when Mrs Mhlongo worked there, the requirement in sub-paragraph (c) might have been satisfied. The Court observed that it could not speculate on the circumstances under which Guy Kimber came to farm Selsley without being its owner or lessee, though it was possible he may have leased it.

This case is significant in South African land reform jurisprudence as it provides important clarification on the interpretation and application of the definition of 'labour tenant' under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996. It establishes that all three requirements of the definition must be satisfied cumulatively before the presumption in section 2(5) can operate. The case emphasizes the importance of proving that labour was provided to the actual owner or lessee of the farm, and demonstrates the strict requirements that must be met to qualify as a labour tenant. It also clarifies that the onus lies on the claimant to prove they fall within the definition of labour tenant, and only then does the burden shift to prove they are not a farmworker. This judgment has implications for numerous land reform claims involving persons residing on farms and highlights the technical requirements that must be satisfied in labour tenant claims.