Selsley Farm Trust v Mhlongo (301/08) [2009] ZASCA 124; [2010] 1 All SA 466 (SCA) (28 September 2009)

Selsley Farm Trust v Mhlongo (301/08) [2009] ZASCA 124; [2010] 1 All SA 466 (SCA) (28 September 2009)

The respondent failed to prove that his mother provided labour to the owner or lessee of the farm as required by sub-paragraph (c) of the definition of 'labour tenant' in the Act. The evidence established that during the relevant period, the farm was owned by Michael Kimber, but the respondent's mother rendered her labour to Guy Kimber, who was not shown to be the owner or lessee. The trial court misdirected itself by applying the presumption under s 2(5) without first establishing that the respondent met all requirements of the definition. As the respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements, he cannot be regarded as a labour tenant under the Act. The appeal succeeds and the...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 124
Parties
Appellant: Selsley Farm Trust; Respondent: Simon Mhlongo
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2009
Case Number
301/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's application dismissed; no order on counter application; no order as to costs.
Judges
Harms, Navsa, Van Heerden, Mhlantla, Leach
Legal Topics
Labour Tenant Definition, Land Reform Labour Tenants Act, Onus of Proof, Farmworker Exclusion
Land and Property Labour Tenant Definition Land Reform Labour Tenants Act 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selsley Farm Trust

Appellant

Simon Mhlongo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent satisfied all requirements of the definition of 'labour tenant' under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's mother provided labour to the owner or lessee of the farm as required by the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the presumption under s 2(5) of the Act applies when the requirements of the definition are not met.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove that his mother provided labour to the owner or lessee of the farm as required by sub-paragraph (c) of the definition of 'labour tenant' in the Act. The evidence established that during the relevant period, the farm was owned by Michael Kimber, but the respondent's mother rendered her labour to Guy Kimber, who was not shown to be the owner or lessee. The trial court misdirected itself by applying the presumption under s 2(5) without first establishing that the respondent met all requirements of the definition. As the respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements, he cannot be regarded as a labour tenant under the Act. The appeal succeeds and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's application dismissed; no order on counter application; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The orders of the court a quo in respect of both the main application and the counter application are set aside and replaced with: (a) The application is dismissed. (b) There will be no order made on the counter application. (c) There will be no order as to costs.