Adendorff N O and Another v Kubheka and Another (463/2020) [2022] ZASCA 29 (24 March 2022)

Adendorff N O and Another v Kubheka and Another (463/2020) [2022] ZASCA 29 (24 March 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Mr Daniel Kubheka satisfied all requirements of the definition of 'labour tenant' under section 1 of the Labour Tenants Act as at 2 June 1995, including providing labour to the owner of Cadie and his parents' cropping and grazing rights. The Adendorffs failed to discharge the onus of proving that Kubheka was a farmworker, as they could not establish that he was paid predominantly in cash or that he provided his labour personally. The evidence demonstrated that Kubheka lodged a valid application before the statutory cut-off date, and administrative shortcomings by the Department could not be held against him. The Court held that just and equitable...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 29
Parties
Appellant: Dr Hubert Adendorff N O; Appellant: Dr Hubert Adendorff; Respondent: Daniel Phunyula Kubheka; Respondent: Director-General for the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Case Number
463/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The order of the Land Claims Court is supplemented to provide for valuation and negotiation of compensation.
Judges
Petse, Mbha, Carelse, Phatshoane, Molefe
Legal Topics
Labour Tenant Definition, Just and Equitable Compensation, Award of Land, Onus of Proof, Farmworker Exclusion
Land and Property Civil Procedure Labour Tenant Definition Just and Equitable Compensation Award of Land Onus of Proof Farmworker Exclusion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Hubert Adendorff N O

Appellant

Dr Hubert Adendorff

Appellant

Daniel Phunyula Kubheka

Respondent

Director-General for the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Daniel Kubheka satisfied the requirements of the definition of 'labour tenant' in section 1 of the Labour Tenants Act as at 2 June 1995.
  2. 2 Whether the Adendorffs proved that Mr Daniel Kubheka is a farmworker and not a labour tenant.
  3. 3 Whether Mr Daniel Kubheka lodged a valid claim before 31 March 2001 in terms of sections 16 and 17 of the Labour Tenants Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Mr Daniel Kubheka satisfied all requirements of the definition of 'labour tenant' under section 1 of the Labour Tenants Act as at 2 June 1995, including providing labour to the owner of Cadie and his parents' cropping and grazing rights. The Adendorffs failed to discharge the onus of proving that Kubheka was a farmworker, as they could not establish that he was paid predominantly in cash or that he provided his labour personally. The evidence demonstrated that Kubheka lodged a valid application before the statutory cut-off date, and administrative shortcomings by the Department could not be held against him. The Court held that just and equitable...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The order of the Land Claims Court is supplemented to provide for valuation and negotiation of compensation.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the Land Claims Court is supplemented to require the second respondent to evaluate the portion of the farm Cadie awarded to the first respondent, including the entire farm, within 60 days to determine just and equitable compensation.