Land Reform in South Africa: An Overview - Centre for Civil Society

[FN85]. A material breach would be, for instance, assault, threats to theowner or other members of the farm community, unreasonably denying the owneraccess to the land occupied etc. See Van Zuydam v Zulu [1999] 2 All SA 100(LCC).[FN86]. See Klopper v Mkhize and others 1998 (1) SA 406 (N); Tselentis Mining(Pty) Ltd v Ndlalose and others 1998 (1) SA 411 (N) and Ngcobo v Salimba;Ngcobo v Van Rensburg supra fn. 84.[FN87]. The Land Affairs General Amendment Act 51 of 2001 amended ESTA bydeleting the exclusion of labor tenants from the definition of occupier.[FN88]. ESTA ss6-10.[FN89]. Land Affairs General Amendment Act 51 of 2001 amends ESTA by insertingss6 (2) (dA).[FN90]. Ibid. inserting new S.6 (5).[FN91]. For instance applicant in Nhlabathi v Fick [2003] 2 All SA 323 (LCC)argued that the right to bury in S6(2) dA was unconstitutional. However, thecourt found that the deprivation was justifiable in a democratic society basedon S 36 of the Constitution.[FN92]. Even some judges have expressed their dislike for land reformlegislation. In Joubert v Van Rensburg [2002] All SA 473 (W) the judge statedthat ESTA was unconstitutional in that it violated the right to propertyalthough the issue had not been raised in the pleadings or argued before thecourt. Both the Supreme Court of Appeal [Mkangeli v Joubert [2002] 2 All SA473(A) and the Constitutional Court Mkangeli v Joubert [2001] (4) BCLR 316 (CC)subsequently disapproved of the statement and the political stance of thejudge in Joubert v Van Rensburg.[FN93]. Republic of South Africa: Communal Land Rights Bill [B 67B-2003].Available at http://www.pmg.org.za. Accessed 20/02/04.[FN94]. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, "Memorandum on objects of the Communal LandRights Bill, 2004" attached to the Bill as cited in fn. 93 supra.page 27 of 28