Pietersen v Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd (LCC08/2014) [2014] ZALCC 6 (24 April 2014)

Pietersen v Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd (LCC08/2014) [2014] ZALCC 6 (24 April 2014)

The court found that the appellant failed to provide admissible medical evidence proving permanent incapacity at the time of his dismissal. The medical certificate relied upon was inadmissible as it was not properly attested or authenticated, and the doctor did not testify or provide a confirmatory affidavit. Even if the medical evidence were accepted, the appellant had breached Section 10(1)(c) of ESTA by living rent free for six years and threatening the respondent’s managers, resulting in a fundamental breakdown of the relationship. Therefore, the requirements for protection under Section 8(4)(b) were not met, and the eviction order was correctly granted.

Citation
[2014] ZALCC 6
Parties
Appellant: Alfred Pietersen; Respondent: Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2014
Case Number
LCC08/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eviction Order Under ESTA
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed.
Judges
M P Canca, M Mpshe
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction, Occupier Status, Medical Evidence Admissibility, Fundamental Breach of Relationship
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Occupier Status Medical Evidence Admissibility Fundamental Breach of Relationship

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Pietersen

Appellant

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eviction Order Under ESTA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was protected from eviction under Section 8(4)(b) of ESTA due to permanent disability.
  2. 2 Whether the medical evidence submitted by the appellant was admissible and sufficient to prove permanent incapacity.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant committed a fundamental breach of the relationship as contemplated in Section 10(1)(c) of ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to provide admissible medical evidence proving permanent incapacity at the time of his dismissal. The medical certificate relied upon was inadmissible as it was not properly attested or authenticated, and the doctor did not testify or provide a confirmatory affidavit. Even if the medical evidence were accepted, the appellant had breached Section 10(1)(c) of ESTA by living rent free for six years and threatening the respondent’s managers, resulting in a fundamental breakdown of the relationship. Therefore, the requirements for protection under Section 8(4)(b) were not met, and the eviction order was correctly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The date for the appellant and all persons occupying through him to vacate House 3, Rainbow Farm 4, Worcester is amended to 31 May 2014.