The Land Court has reserved judgment on who should conduct an independent evaluation of South Africa’s Labour Tenants Claims Resolution Programme (LTCRP), a process expected to influence efforts to resolve thousands of labour tenant claims that have remained outstanding for more than two decades.
The matter was heard last week before Judge President Monica Carelse in the ongoing Mwelase litigation, which has sought to hold the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development accountable for delays in processing labour tenant claims.
Judge President Carelse granted Legal Aid South Africa two weeks to file additional submissions before issuing a directive on the way forward.
The hearing focused on who should oversee an independent evaluation of the programme, which was established to process labour tenant applications lodged under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act of 1996.
The Act was introduced after the end of apartheid to restore land rights to labour tenants who had historically lived and worked on commercial farms in exchange for the right to occupy and use land rather than receiving full monetary wages. Thousands of labour tenants lodged applications before the deadline closed in March 2001, hoping to secure ownership of land their families had occupied for generations.
More than 25 years later, however, thousands of those claims remain unresolved.
The continuing delays prompted the Constitutional Court to intervene in 2019 in the landmark Mwelase judgment, where it found that the Department had failed to process labour tenant claims within a reasonable time. The court subsequently appointed Professor Richard Levin as Special Master of Labour Tenants to oversee implementation of a court-approved Labour Tenants Claims Resolution Programme aimed at accelerating outstanding claims.
Despite that intervention, progress has remained slow.
During a meeting of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Land Reform and Rural Development in July 2025, the Department reported that just over half of the 20,524 labour tenant applications had been finalised, leaving more than 9,000 claims still outstanding.
Department officials attributed the delays to staff shortages, limited institutional capacity, weak provincial performance and court backlogs. Parliament also heard that several systems designed to improve the programme, including a digital claims platform, claimant portal and standard operating procedures, had been developed but were still not fully implemented.
The slow pace of implementation has continued to frustrate labour tenant organisations, legal representatives and communities who have waited decades for their claims to be resolved.
During last week’s hearing, the Association for Rural Advancement (AFRA) argued that the independent evaluation should be led by the Special Master of Labour Tenants and his office, as contemplated in the court-approved implementation plan.
AFRA also proposed that the process be overseen by an independent steering committee comprising parties to the litigation, government representatives and organisations representing labour tenants to ensure transparency, accountability and meaningful participation.
According to AFRA, Professor Levin supported the proposal during the hearing, saying his office possessed the expertise and institutional knowledge necessary to conduct the evaluation and that an independent steering committee chaired by a Land Court judge would strengthen the credibility of the process.
The Department, however, maintained that the evaluation should instead be conducted by either a retired judge or an independent consultant.
AFRA argued that appointing another evaluator risked delaying the programme even further.
“An independent evaluation is essential to understand why the Labour Tenants Claims Resolution Programme is failing to deliver justice to thousands of labour tenant families. The evaluation must strengthen accountability, identify systemic challenges and help ensure the programme finally delivers on its constitutional promise,” said AFRA Strategy Manager Siya Sithole.
Sithole said the evaluation should identify weaknesses that continue to delay labour tenant claims and recommend practical measures to improve implementation.
The debate over the evaluation comes amid broader concerns about how South Africa measures the success of land reform.
While government has often reported progress by the number of claims settled or hectares transferred, land reform practitioners increasingly argue that these figures alone do not reflect whether communities have benefited from land reform.
In an opinion article published last week, Vumelana Advisory Fund chief executive Peter Setou argued that South Africa should move beyond measuring land reform by the number of hectares transferred and instead assess whether restored land creates jobs, supports sustainable farming, strengthens rural economies and contributes to food security.
Setou said land reform should be viewed not simply as the transfer of land from one owner to another, but as a process that restores dignity and creates economic opportunities for beneficiary communities.
He argued that many restitution and redistribution projects have struggled because beneficiaries often receive land without adequate post-settlement support, including finance, technical expertise, infrastructure, governance support and access to agricultural markets.
Drawing on examples from countries including Ethiopia and Sierra Leone, Setou said that secure land rights, combined with institutional support, had produced more sustainable outcomes than programmes focused solely on land transfers. He also warned that poorly implemented land reform, without sufficient planning and support, risked leaving land underutilised while failing to improve livelihoods.
His comments echoed concerns raised repeatedly by Parliament, civil society organisations and the Special Master that labour tenant claims cannot be regarded as resolved merely because land has been transferred. Sustainable implementation requires functioning institutions, adequate support for beneficiaries and efficient administration.
AFRA has consistently argued that an independent evaluation is necessary to identify why implementation continues to lag despite repeated court interventions and to recommend practical reforms that will improve accountability within the Department.
Following submissions from all parties, the Land Court reserved judgment.
Judge President Carelse directed Legal Aid South Africa to file further submissions before issuing a directive that will determine who conducts the independent evaluation and how the process will proceed. – news@mukurukuru.co.za
Be First to Comment