VUYO JAMES
A ruling by the Land Claims Court dismissing the claim of a man who lived on a KwaZulu Natal farm all his life and worked there for many years to be recognised as a labour tenant has once again cast the spotlight on the rights of farm dwellers.
Bhekumuzi Samuel Mnguni applied to the court to be declared as a labour tenant of a farm in Bergvillle, KwaZulu-Natal.
Judge Muzi Thomas Ncube of the Land Claims Court of South Africa ruled against Mnguni saying that he is an occupier of Paboom Farm rather than a labour tenant because he does not meet the full definition of labour tenant as set out in section 33 (2A) of the land reform (Labour Tenants Act, Act No 3 of 1996).
Tony Braitwaite gave testimony on behalf of first defendant in this case, Damview Trust. According to court records, Mnguni was born on the farm and had to quit school as a teenager to work there. His grandparents are both buried on the farm. Both his parents lived and worked on the farm as well.
The Mngunis kept livestock, and so grazing and cropping was allowed on the farm. According to the Act and its criteria, “a labour tenant is defined as a person who resides in a farm or has the right to; who has or had the right to use cropping or grazing of land; and whose parent or grandparent resided on farm and used land for grazing or cropping.”
Despite clearly falling within the definition, the court found differently.
“In the case the Plaintiff’s (Mnguni) evidence falls short of proving that the plaintiff falls under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of a labour tenant,” Ncube said in his ruling.
In 1984 when Mnguni was 17 years old his parents died. So, he had to work at the farm – for a salary of R15 a month in order for his family to continue residing there. At the time the owner was Peter Britz. However, the court found against Mnguni.
“It is possible that the Plaintiffs’ father was a labour tenant as when he stopped working, the Plaintiff left school at the age of 17, to work on behalf of his father, so that the family could continue staying on that farm.
“However, at that time the Plaintiff was not the head of the Mnguni family and he had no independent right to crop and graze the cattle on the farm, in fact there is no evidence that he owned live stock at that time,” judge Ncube said.
Mnguni’s testimony, though, differs. He said he had 25 herd of cattle and 10 goats of which he had to sell if ever the number of cattle reached 30. They grazed at a separated communal grazing camp for black workers at the farm.
Judge Ncube outlined the terms in section 2 (5) of the Act which shifts the responsibility of proving. The Act places the responsibility on the person seeking relief (Mnguni) to prove that he is a labour tenant if he falls within the paragraphs of the definition.
And once he is done proving that, then the responsibility moves to the defendant to show that the Plaintiff is a farm worker. However, the defendant, in this case Braitwaite, did not state that Mnguni is a farm worker, as the Act requires.
The onerous task of proving ownership in those days being demanded of Mnguni in a court of law.
“However, the Plaintiff failed to prove that labour which he provided to the farm owner be it Mr Britz or Mr Braitwaite was in consideration for the right to reside, crop and graze cattle on the farm,” Judge Ncube said.
The case also highlighted the shocking remuneration structure in farms. Mnguni revealed that he once earned R15 a month when he started working in addition to receiving 30 80kg bags of mealies. In 1993 his earnings rose to R150 and 12 bags of maize meal a year. By 2003 he was earning between R1000-00 to R1400-00 which was the year he stopped working.
“What is clear though is that the Plaintiff is an occupier but not a labour tenant,” judge Ncube said.
In December 2019, Prof Richard Levin was sworn in as the Special Master for labour tenants at the Land Claims Court. This followed a Constitutional Court judgment in the matter between, Bhekindlela Mwelase and others vs Department of Rural Development on 20 August 2019 to reinstate a Land Claims Court order of 2016, to appoint a Special Master for labour tenants because of government’s failure to fully implement the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act.
This came after a ruling in the case where thousands of labour tenants lodged applications under the Labour Tenants Act with the department of rural development and land reform before the cut-off date of 31 March 2001.
The tenants took the case to court arguing that the Department had failed to process these applications. Both the Land Claims Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal found that this failure breached sections 10, 25(6), 33, 195 and 237 of the Constitution. – news@mukurukuru.co.za
Be First to Comment