Kunene and Another v Hattingh and Others (LCC126/2008) [2016] ZALCC 28 (13 January 2016)

Kunene and Another v Hattingh and Others (LCC126/2008) [2016] ZALCC 28 (13 January 2016)

The court found that the second applicant, Enoch Kunene, satisfied all three requirements of the labour tenant definition: he resided on Spitskop, had rights to crop and graze in exchange for labour, and his parents and grandparents also resided and provided labour on the farm. The first applicant, Felokwakhe Johan Kunene, failed to prove residence on Spitskop, as evidence indicated his permanent residence was at Engogo. The payment of a salary did not negate the applicants' rights to residence, cropping, and grazing, as these rights were enjoyed independently of the salary. The presumption in section 2(5) applied to the second applicant, and the respondents failed to prove he was a...

Citation
[2016] ZALCC 28
Parties
Applicant: Felokwakhe Johan Kunene; Applicant: Enoch Kunene; Respondent: Tiaan Hattingh; Respondent: RLU Security; Respondent: Department of Land Affairs and Rural Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 January 2016
Case Number
LCC126/2008
Procedural Posture
Labour Tenancy Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The application by the first applicant is dismissed. The second applicant is declared a labour tenant in accordance with section 33(2A) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mpshe AJ
Legal Topics
Labour Tenant Definition, Section 33 Land Reform Labour Tenants Act, Residence Requirement, Grazing and Cropping Rights, Onus and Presumption, Salary and Labour Tenancy
Land and Property Labour Law Labour Tenant Definition Section 33 Land Reform Labour Tenants Act Residence Requirement Grazing and Cropping Rights Onus and Presumption Salary and Labour Tenancy

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felokwakhe Johan Kunene

Applicant

Enoch Kunene

Applicant

Tiaan Hattingh

Respondent

RLU Security

Respondent

Department of Land Affairs and Rural Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tenancy Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants qualify as labour tenants under section 33(2A) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the payment of a salary to the applicants affects their status as labour tenants.
  3. 3 Whether the first applicant resides or has the right to reside on the farm Spitskop.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second applicant, Enoch Kunene, satisfied all three requirements of the labour tenant definition: he resided on Spitskop, had rights to crop and graze in exchange for labour, and his parents and grandparents also resided and provided labour on the farm. The first applicant, Felokwakhe Johan Kunene, failed to prove residence on Spitskop, as evidence indicated his permanent residence was at Engogo. The payment of a salary did not negate the applicants' rights to residence, cropping, and grazing, as these rights were enjoyed independently of the salary. The presumption in section 2(5) applied to the second applicant, and the respondents failed to prove he was a...

Court Disposition

The application by the first applicant is dismissed. The second applicant is declared a labour tenant in accordance with section 33(2A) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application by the first applicant is dismissed.
  • The second applicant is declared a labour tenant in accordance with section 33(2A) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.