The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform: Eastern Cape v Katleho Johannes Phahla and Bethwel Ntsikelelo Mpunyuka

The applicant (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform) is the registered owner of farms situated in Matatiele (Portion 0 and Portion 1 of Farm Duckpond, No. 17022). The first respondent entered into a caretaker agreement on 14 April 2014, and the second respondent on 22 May 2014, to occupy these properties. The caretaker agreements prohibited subletting, cession or assignment of rights without prior written consent from the owner (clauses 3.6 and 10.1). On 17 August 2015, the applicant issued notices of breach alleging sub-leasing. Investigations revealed that between April-October 2016, Mr. Freddie Peterson paid various sums ranging from R2,000 to R12,000 to the respondents. A farm assessment on 20 September 2017 established that the first respondent had livestock belonging to third parties (Mr. Tsepe and Dr. Nakin) on the property. On 5 December 2019, the applicant approved termination of the agreements. Notices to vacate were served on 12 December 2019 and final notices on 26 February 2020. The respondents refused to vacate, denying they breached the agreements and claiming the payments were for grazing material/maize stalks and that third-party livestock were only there temporarily for farm management assistance.

• Whether the respondents breached the caretaker agreements by subletting the properties to third parties without written consent
• Whether the applicant validly cancelled the caretaker agreements based on the alleged breaches
• Whether the court should grant an eviction order against the respondents
• Whether genuine disputes of fact existed that precluded granting final relief in motion proceedings
• The proper approach to costs in eviction proceedings

1. The cancellation of the caretaker agreement dated 14 April 2014 between applicant and first respondent in respect of Portion 1 of Farm Duckpond, No. 17022 (Hentiq Farm 2161, Matatiele) was confirmed. 2. The first respondent and his livestock were directed to vacate the premises. 3. The first respondent was directed to remove any person and livestock occupying the property on his behalf within 14 days. 4. The cancellation of the caretaker agreement dated 22 May 2014 between applicant and second respondent in respect of the remaining extent of Farm Duckpond, No. 17022 (Hentiq Farm 2161, Matatiele) was confirmed. 5. The second respondent and his livestock were directed to vacate the premises. 6. The second respondent was directed to remove any person and livestock occupying the property on his behalf within 14 days. 7. The first and second respondents were ordered to pay costs of the application jointly and severally.

A caretaker who signs a caretaker agreement with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform is bound by all terms of that agreement. Where the agreement prohibits subletting, cession or assignment of rights without prior written consent (as in clauses 3.6 and 10.1), the presence of third-party livestock on the property and receipt of payments from third parties, without obtaining written consent from the landowner, constitutes a material breach of the agreement. The landowner is entitled to cancel the agreement pursuant to the breach clause (clause 11.1) after giving proper notice. In motion proceedings, disputes of fact that are not genuine, bona fide, or are far-fetched and untenable will not prevent the court from granting final relief. A court may subject apparent disputes to closer scrutiny and reject explanations that are inconsistent with undisputed facts.

The court noted that caretaker agreements under the State Land and Lease Disposal Policy (sub-clause 36.6) may be granted to suitable persons for any period at the discretion of the Department, and may be extended on expiry of the initial period. The objective of such agreements is to provide security for state-owned properties against security threats. The court also observed that the properties in question were utilized as grazing pastures for the respondents' animals and did not constitute the primary residence of the respondents, though this observation did not form part of the legal basis for the decision. On costs, the court reiterated the general principle that the purpose of costs is to indemnify a successful party, and that costs should be awarded judicially, taking into account the circumstances of each case, the conduct of parties, and fairness between the parties.

This case clarifies the application of caretaker agreements under the State Land and Lease Disposal Policy in South Africa. It confirms that caretaker agreements are contractual arrangements subject to strict compliance with their terms, particularly prohibitions on subletting without written consent. The judgment reinforces the principle that parties who sign agreements are bound by all terms, and that the state, as landowner, is entitled to enforce compliance and terminate agreements for material breaches. The case also demonstrates the application of the Plascon-Evans principle in eviction proceedings, showing that courts will reject defenses that do not raise genuine disputes of fact. It provides guidance on how courts assess whether alleged subletting constitutes a breach when respondents claim alternative explanations for third-party occupation and payments received.