Kubheka v Adendorf and Others (LCC140/2010) [2019] ZALCC 9; [2019] 3 All SA 566 (LCC) (29 April 2019)

Kubheka v Adendorf and Others (LCC140/2010) [2019] ZALCC 9; [2019] 3 All SA 566 (LCC) (29 April 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff met all requirements of the labour tenant definition: he resided on the farm, had cropping and grazing rights, and provided labour to the owners and lessees. His parents also fulfilled the requirements, satisfying paragraph (c). The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff was a farmworker, as the evidence did not establish that he was paid predominantly in cash or obliged to perform services personally. The Adendorf report was rejected for its lack of objectivity and incorrect valuation approach. The court accepted the documentary evidence and departmental notices as sufficient proof that the plaintiff lodged a valid...

Citation
[2019] ZALCC 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Phunyula Daniel Kubheka; Defendant: Elizabeth Susara Adendorf; Defendant: Dr Hubert Adendorf; Defendant: Director General: Department of Land Affairs and Rural Development
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2019
Case Number
LCC140/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim granted. Declaratory order issued confirming labour tenant status and entitlement to award of land. No order as to costs.
Judges
Barnes
Legal Topics
Labour Tenant Definition, Award of Land, Onus of Proof, Section 16 Application, Section 17 Procedure
Land and Property Administrative Law Labour Tenant Definition Award of Land Onus of Proof Section 16 Application Section 17 Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phunyula Daniel Kubheka

Plaintiff

Elizabeth Susara Adendorf

Defendant

Dr Hubert Adendorf

Defendant

Director General: Department of Land Affairs and Rural Development

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff qualifies as a labour tenant under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff lodged a valid application for the award of land in terms of section 17 of the Act before the cut-off date.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is a farmworker as defined in the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff met all requirements of the labour tenant definition: he resided on the farm, had cropping and grazing rights, and provided labour to the owners and lessees. His parents also fulfilled the requirements, satisfying paragraph (c). The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff was a farmworker, as the evidence did not establish that he was paid predominantly in cash or obliged to perform services personally. The Adendorf report was rejected for its lack of objectivity and incorrect valuation approach. The court accepted the documentary evidence and departmental notices as sufficient proof that the plaintiff lodged a valid...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim granted. Declaratory order issued confirming labour tenant status and entitlement to award of land. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that Mr Kubheka is a labour tenant as defined in the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.
  • Mr Kubheka is entitled to the award of that portion of portion 1 of the farm Cardie No 12399, Registration Division HS, in the district of Newcastle, Kwa-Zulu Natal which he and his family were occupying and using as at 2 June 1995, including the two grazing camps that Mr Kubheka and his family were utilising at...