On 24 June 2025, in Belle Vallee Vineyards (Pty) Ltd and Another v Lakey and Others (LANC15/2025) [2025] ZALCC 27, the Land Claims Court (LCC) upheld an appeal from the Wellington Magistrates’ Court and clarified the relationship between dismissal from employment and eviction. In particular, the LCC addressed the interaction between the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) and held that where an eviction arises from the termination of employment, the eviction must be a distinct process from that of the dismissal. The court reaffirmed the principle that it is not within the scope of an eviction court to determine the fairness or otherwise of a dismissal that forms the basis of the eviction.

In a legal context where employees have recourse to contest the fairness of their dismissal—and where obtaining eviction orders is often challenging - this decision is significant in clearly delineating the separate legal processes governing termination of employment and eviction.

Background

Mr Lakey was employed by Belle Vallee Vineyards (the employer), and as part of his employment contract, he and his family were granted a right of residence on his employer’s farm. In September 2022, Mr Lakey was charged with “taking company property without permission” and, at a disciplinary hearing, admitted to taking some items but denied others. He was subsequently dismissed for misconduct and did not refer the matter to the CCMA.

Nearly two months later, the employer issued a notice terminating his right of residence. However, Mr Lakey remained on the property, and no eviction proceedings were initiated for nearly two years. During this period, Mrs Lakey continued to work for the employer.

In December 2022, the employer offered Mrs Lakey three months’ rental assistance if she agreed to vacate the property, which she declined. In January 2023, she was dismissed for operational requirements, and a few days later, both Lakeys received notice terminating their entitlement to remain in the residence. This notice was withdrawn, and the employer thereafter invited the Lakeys to make representations under section 8 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). Despite these representations, the employer nonetheless terminated the Lakeys residence and set a date by which they were required to vacate.

Judgment

The Land Claims Court (LCC), citing Snyders v De Jager (Joinder) 2017 (5) BCLR 604 (CC) (21 December 2016) (“Snyders v De Jager”), emphasised that termination of residence must be a separate, procedurally fair process distinct from dismissal. Once a dismissal is either upheld or not challenged, the employer must still follow ESTA's requirements, including affording the former employee a chance to make representations and, where appropriate, offering alternative accommodation or financial support.

The court reaffirmed that the fairness of a dismissal cannot be determined before a court hearing an eviction application—the fairness of the dismissal must be resolved under the mechanisms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). If the employee fails to challenge the dismissal, and the employer complies with ESTA, the eviction may proceed without revisiting the fairness of the dismissal. However, it was emphasised that an employer must still follow a procedurally fair process prior to terminating the employee’s entitlement to residence and the employer will not be excused from complying with the requirements as set out in ESTA.

The court further referenced the decision in Snyders v De Jager and stated that although an employer providing the occupier with an opportunity to make representations is not a strict requirement, it is nevertheless a relevant factor in determining the fairness of an eviction.

Therefore, although the court ultimately allowed the termination of the Lakeys’ residence, it ordered the employer to pay the family R20 000 within five days of vacating the property and ordered the employer to transport the minor children to school daily until the end of the 2025 school year. This outcome illustrates that even where an eviction order is granted, a court may impose additional obligations on the employer in an endeavour to mitigate the impact of the eviction on the employee — especially where children are involved.