Notice

Good dayI trust this message finds you well. We have recently been notified of the impending national blitz inspections scheduled by the Department of Labor for the week of April 22nd to 24th and May 20th to 24th. These inspections are part of the government’s efforts to uphold compliance with regulatory standards, particularly concerning Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA).If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are committed to supporting you every step of the way.Thank you for your attention to this matter.Warm regards,Tammy Burger

Die MoladoraTrust v Mereki en Ander saak het gehandel oor weidingsreg, al dan nie, ingevolge die Wet op die Uitbreiding van Sekerheid van Verblyfreg 62 van 1997 (ESTA), op die eiendom waarop verblyfreg gevestig is. Aangesien die oorspronklike uitspraak verreikende gevolge vir ons lede ingehou het was AgriMP dus deurgaans ten gunste daarvan om die appèl te ondersteun. Op 3 April 2024 het die Hoogste Hof van Appèl uitspraak gelewer in die Moladora Trust v Mereki en ander-saak. Die appèl is deur die hof gehandhaaf. Die plaasbewoners is beveel om onmiddellik al hul vee van die applikant se plaas te verwyder. Die Appèlhof het sy bevindinge gegrond op die Adendorff Boerdery v Shabalala en ander [2017] ZASCA 37 para 28; Loskop Landgoed Boerdery (Pty) en ander v Petrus Moeleso en ander [2022] ZASCA 53 para 14, waar dit bepaal het dat die reg van ‘n okkupeerder om vee op ‘n ander persoon se plaas of grond aan te hou of te bewei, nie ‘n reg is wat uit ESTA spruit nie, maar wel ‘n persoonlike reg wat spruit uit toestemming tussen die okkupeerder en die grondeienaar of persoon in beheer. Die okkupeerders is verder verbied om, sonder vooraf toestemming van die applikant, vee op die plaas aan te hou. Die hof het elke party beveel om hul eie regskoste te betaal. Die gunstige uitkoms van hierdie saak word deur AgriMP verwelkom. Hierdie uitspraak behoort die verkeerde interpretasie en toepassing van die ESTA wet te voorkom of ten minste te beperk.Lede word aangemoedig om geldige ooreenkomste met plaasbewoners, wie oor verblyfreg gegrond op ESTA wetgewing beskik, in plek te stel sodat onnodige toekomstige regskoste vermy kan word. Vriendelike groete,Robert DavelUitvoerende BestuurderAgri MP

The MoladoraTrust v Mereki and Others case dealt with grazing rights, whether or not, in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA), on the property on which tenure has been established. As the original ruling had far-reaching consequences for our members, AgriMP was therefore consistently in favour of supporting the appeal. On 3 April 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeal delivered judgment in the Moladora Trust v Mereki and others case. The appeal was upheld by the court. The farm dwellers were ordered to immediately remove all their livestock from the applicant’s farm. The Court of Appeal based its findings on Adendorff Farm v Shabalala and others [2017] ZASCA 37 para 28; Loskop Landgoed Boerdery (Pty) and others v Petrus Moeleso and others [2022] ZASCA 53 para 14, where it was determined that the right of an occupier to keep or graze livestock on another person’s farm or land, is not a right arising from ESTA, but a personal right arising from consent between the occupier and the landowner or person in charge. The occupiers were further prohibited from keeping livestock on the farm without prior permission from the applicant. The court ordered each party to pay their own legal costs. The favorable outcome of this case is welcomed by AgriMP. This judgment should prevent, or at least limit, the incorrect interpretation and application of the ESTA law.Members are encouraged to put valid agreements in place with farm dwellers, who have right of residence based on ESTA legislation, so that unnecessary future legal costs can be avoided. Robert DavelExecutive ManagerAgri MP