Should farm dwellers be allowed to graze their livestock on land owned by their employers? According to the Land Claims Court, yes.
The court recently gave a broader interpretation of the Extension of Security and Tenure Act (ESTA), stipulating that ESTA occupiers also have the right to graze their livestock.
Moladora Trust vs farm dwellers
Previously, South African courts believed that grazing was only permitted with the landowner’s consent.
But in the matter of the Moladora Trust versus three farm dwellers in North West, the court said in this instance, the act demands a more generous interpretation.
The case concerns grazing animals under the control of the farm dwellers known as Magalone, Topies and Dikhotso Mereki. The issue, however, according to the farm owners, is that animals are illegally grazing on one of the trust’s farms. The farm is in a family trust under the name Moladora Trust.
The Extension of Security and Tenure Act (ESTA)
An Act to provide for measures with State assistance to facilitate long-term security of land tenure and regulate the conditions of residence on certain land.
The Mereki family (farm dwellers) are the children of a former employee of the trust, the late Meriam Mereki. Her children continued to reside on the farm after their mother’s death.
The trust accepted that the family were occupiers in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). However, they said their rights of occupation were only for residential or housing purposes and that they had never sought nor obtained consent to graze cattle on the farm.
The trust served “eviction notices”, demanding the removal of the cattle in 2018 and in 2020.
‘Minimum wage not enough’
Speaking to Food For Mzansi, Christina van Straten, media liaison officer for Women on Farms Project (WFP), said that from anecdotal evidence given by farmworker women, there has been a systematic attempt to prevent farm dwellers from keeping any livestock.
“WFP even had to deal with cases where their non-violent dogs were not allowed on the farm,” she said. “We see this as a further strategy of land owners to exert their control over farmworkers, dwellers and land.’
According to Van Straten, preventing farm dwellers from owning livestock seriously impacts their economic independence and food security.
“It is common knowledge that the minimum wage farmworkers earn is not enough to sustain families, especially where one or more adults are reliant on seasonal work,” she said.
Court judgment problematic
In the meantime, Agri SA has decided to financially back the owners of Remainder Wildebeeslaagte farm in their court case against the three farm dwellers.
According to Agri SA, the case is expected to set an important precedent with far-reaching implications for private property rights in South Africa and the scope of ESTA.
The appeal is against the Land Claims Court judgment that protects grazing rights under ESTA at the expense of private property rights.
ALSO READ: What every farmer should know about security of tenure
Judge Cowen’s judgements concern Agri SA
“The applicants in the appeal believe that in the Moladora case, Judge Cowen failed to properly apply the Supreme Court of Appeal precedents already set in the Adendorffs Boerderye and Loskop Landgoed Boerdery.
“In the Moladora judgment, Judge Cowen admits that these judgements are binding on the Land Claims Court but nevertheless converts the right to graze cattle on the property, which is a personal right derived by consent, into a right under ESTA,” Agri SA said.
Agri SA said they are concerned with the sustainability of farming in South Africa and the protection of the nation’s food security.
The farmer lobby group said it would provide support – whether legal or otherwise – where necessary to protect the interest of the agricultural sector.
ALSO READ: Women’s Day: Join us at our Soul To Soil brunch
Enjoyed reading? Tell us why with a quick 5-min survey
Sign up for Mzansi Today: Your daily take on the news and happenings from the agriculture value chain.
