Mkhize and Another v SA Green Farming CC and Another (LCC166-2018) [2024] ZALCC 35 (4 October 2024)

Mkhize and Another v SA Green Farming CC and Another (LCC166-2018) [2024] ZALCC 35 (4 October 2024)

The court found that the First Plaintiff, Mr. Mkhize, satisfied all elements of the statutory definition of a labour tenant: he resided on the farm, had rights to crop and graze, and provided labour in exchange for those rights. His ancestors also resided and provided labour under similar conditions. The evidence showed that the provision of labour was tied to the right to occupy and use the land, and the cash remuneration received was minimal compared to the value of residence and land use. The contracts of employment produced by the defendants did not comply with the statutory requirements for farm workers, as they lacked explicit stipulation of predominant cash payment and did not...

Citation
[2024] ZALCC 35
Parties
Plaintiff: MZONGAFI MKHIZE; Plaintiff: CABANGANI GLADYS MKHIZE; Defendant: SA GREEN FARMING CC; Defendant: DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2024
Case Number
LCC166/2018
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
The First Plaintiff is declared a labour tenant of the farm in question. No order as to costs.
Judges
Ncube
Legal Topics
Labour Tenancy, Land Reform Labour Tenants Act, Burden of Proof, Definition of Farmworker, Security of Tenure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Labour Tenancy Land Reform Labour Tenants Act Burden of Proof Definition of Farmworker Security of Tenure

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

Parties

MZONGAFI MKHIZE

Plaintiff

CABANGANI GLADYS MKHIZE

Plaintiff

SA GREEN FARMING CC

Defendant

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Plaintiff qualifies as a labour tenant under section 1 of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the Second Plaintiff qualifies as a labour tenant under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants have discharged the onus to prove the plaintiffs are farm workers as defined in the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Plaintiff, Mr. Mkhize, satisfied all elements of the statutory definition of a labour tenant: he resided on the farm, had rights to crop and graze, and provided labour in exchange for those rights. His ancestors also resided and provided labour under similar conditions. The evidence showed that the provision of labour was tied to the right to occupy and use the land, and the cash remuneration received was minimal compared to the value of residence and land use. The contracts of employment produced by the defendants did not comply with the statutory requirements for farm workers, as they lacked explicit stipulation of predominant cash payment and did not...

Court Disposition

The First Plaintiff is declared a labour tenant of the farm in question. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the First Plaintiff, Muzongafi Mkhize, is a labour tenant in terms of section 33(2A) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.
  • There is no order as to costs.