Legal certainty for farm dwellers
• Farm dwellers’ challenges must go to Supreme Court
The Constitutional Court has ruled that farm dwellers seeking to challenge an eviction order should approach the Supreme Court of Appeal rather than the Land Claims Court when seeking legal recourse.
The Constitutional Court has ruled that farm dwellers seeking to challenge an eviction order should approach the Supreme Court of Appeal rather than the Land Claims Court when seeking legal recourse.
The ruling given in December has been welcomed by advocacy groups as it ends several years of legal uncertainty over which court has jurisdiction in the matter.
Lawyers for Human Rights attorney Louise du Plessis said on Monday that the judgment provided procedural clarity and might now help to reverse years of jurisprudential precedent from cases brought before the Land Claims Court.
The Constitutional Court in December gave reasons for an interim order granted in November 2015, which concluded that the Snyders family should be returned to a dwelling they were finally evicted from in 2015 pending the outcome of their request for leave to appeal.
The family from Voorbaat in the Western Cape fought Ladismith farm owner Louisa de Jager all the way to the Constitutional Court after farm worker Karel Snyders was fired in 2008. The court ultimately upheld that the applicants’ appeal against an original eviction order should have been dealt with by the Supreme Court of Appeal and not dismissed for failing to appeal to the Land Claims Court.
The Constitutional Court further decided to deal with the merits of the case itself in the interests of time, rather than sending the issue back to the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court of Appeal was … wrong in its conclusion in striking the matter off the roll. It should have held that the appeal lay to it. It also ought to have considered and determined the appeal on the merits,” the judgment penned by Judge Raymond Zondo read.
“Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal.”
The judgment concluded that the reasonable termination of employment required for the eviction order had not been proved. “I, therefore, conclude that the magistrate’s court erred in finding that Mr Snyders’ eviction would be just and equitable. From this it would have followed that the eviction of the Snyders family would also have been unjust and inequitable,” the judgment read.
Du Plessis said on Monday many of the precedents by the Land Claims Court had seemingly gone against the rights of occupiers, which the advocacy group believed was at odds with the original intention of legislation.
“In a way we hope that these kinds of judgments [at the Constitutional Court] will push the jurisprudence more in favour of the occupiers,” Du Plessis said.
‘I, THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT MR SNYDERS’ EVICTION WOULD BE JUST AND EQUITABLE’
The South African National Civic Organisation on Saturday welcomed the Constitutional Court ruling as “a momentous victory that has affirmed the protection of workers and families residing in farming communities”.
National spokesman Jabu Mahlangu said: “The historic ruling guarantees that the Land Claims Court will no longer endorse unlawful eviction orders but will ensure that the security of tenure of the most exploited and abused section of workers is protected.”