Land Court orders eviction of businesswoman and adult children from Centurion farm

A woman who spent R400,000 erecting buildings on a farm, ran a transport business and earned more than R14,500 a month has been instructed by the Land Courtto vacate Knoppieslaagte farm in Centurion by the end of the month. 

This comes after farmer Brian Stephen Beaumont applied to the court for an order to evict Asnath Malephi and her two adult children so he can sell the property after falling into financial difficulties. 

The court said Beaumont should offer the family R25,000 towards the cost of their relocation — an amount he had previously offered Malephi, but she had declined. 

The court heard that Malephi had moved onto the farm with her baby in 2006 to be with her partner John, who worked for Beaumont at the time. Another older child came to join her in 2020 and both children were over 18 when Beaumont applied for eviction earlier this year. 

At some point after 2006 John relocated to Kyalami where Beaumont had another business while Malephi remained on the farm. Beaumont agreed to the arrangement and said Malephi could stay on the property indefinitely as long as she kept it clean. 

Beaumont employed Malephi at his other business — a nursery and landscaping business called Four Seasons Gardens — until he terminated her employment in 2013. 

In 2019, without permission, Malephi built permanent structures on the farm — a four-room house to live in and a one-room house to be used for traditional healing rituals. 

While Malephi’s lawyer argued that she spent R400,000 doing this, her evidence was that she raised the money over two years from a transport business she was running and a tuck shop selling sweets and food.

In February 2023 Beaumont signed a purchase offer for the farm in terms of which he was to hand over the property as vacant to a developer by March 2025 — failing which the sale would lapse. 

The court heard that Malephi is self-employed and runs a school transport business, from which she earns R5,000 a month. She is also paid R8,000 by her partner, John. Malephi was asked to make representations on why she believed Beaumont did not have the right to terminate her right of residence, but failed to do so. This led Beaumont to issue her with an eviction order in June 2024. 

Malephi argued that the eviction order should have also been served on her children and that there had been a lack of mediation in the handling of the case. 

It was argued that because she had moved onto the farm after 1997, she did not automatically qualify to continue staying there under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) and the court had the right to evict her. 

“In my view, this is one of the cases in which the dispute could be settled by mediation. But the parties are far from finding each other in such a way that settlement by way of mediation is impossible,” said Land Court judge Muzikawakhelwana Thomas Ncube. 

He found Beaumont and Malephi had concluded a written agreement in which Beaumont gave Malephi permission to stay on the farm without paying rent. The condition was that she keep the property clean and not allow any other people to stay there. 

In terms of the agreement, Malephi was free to stay there as long as she wished, but that the arrangement could be terminated with 30 days' notice should the farm be sold. It was also noted that she had built permanent structures on the property without consent. 

Ncube noted that any eviction was required to be just and equitable in terms of ESTA, such as when the occupier is not employed by the landowner, or their termination had been carried out lawfully. 

The court noted that though Malephi had arrived on the farm in 2006, she had not reached age 60. There was also no evidence produced to show that she did not understand the agreement she had signed with Beaumont. 

Malephi complained that she could not find other suitable accommodation, while the local municipality confirmed that she does not qualify for even temporary emergency accommodation. She earns enough to provide for her own accommodation — particularly as she has spent more than R400,000 erecting buildings on the property. 

The court accepted that she receives R5,000 from her school transport business, R8,000 from her partner and that she gets further income from a tuck-shop on which she spends R1,500 a month on stock.

She pays R5,000 a month on a vehicle, contributes R1,000 to a stokvel and has credit accounts at Game, Truworths and Mr Price. 

The court held that there was no obligation on the landowner to provide the occupier with alternative accommodation before an eviction order may be granted. 

“Mr Beaumont has been waiting for a long time for the respondents to find their own accommodation. Malephi was given sufficient time to make representations but did not do so. She was offered R25,000 as a contribution towards relocation expenses, but she declined the offer. I am of the view that it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order in the circumstances of this case,” said Ncube. 

He said the next consideration was compensation for the structures and improvements Malephi claimed to have carried out on the property. Both parties were asked to make submissions on this issue. 

Beaumont told the court he could not afford any compensation because he was financially distressed. His business was not doing well, thus he was selling the property. He pointed out that Malephi was not an occupier in terms of ESTA as her income was in excess of the R13,625 prescribed by the minister. She therefore did not qualify for compensation as she did not afford the protection of ESTA occupiers. 

Malephi’s laywer argued she should be paid R400,000 — more than the R100,000 she originally claimed. The error had come about because many of her receipts were destroyed in floods. 

The municipality noted that Malephi did not qualify for or deserve emergency accommodation. Her children were over 18, one of them doing a business management course at Gezina College and was transported by Malephi. Malephi was not paying fees for this. 

Ncube found it to be “an inescapable conclusion” that Malephi was not an ESTA occupier and should not be compensated for the buildings she erected without consent. 

He ordered Malephi to vacate the farm by April 25. Should she fail, the Sheriff of the Court was authorised and directed to evict her and her children and everyone occupying the property through them on April 30.