Aden Landgoed Bk v Van Der Walt NO en 'n Ander (678/94) [1996] ZASCA 43 (29 March 1996)

Aden Landgoed Bk v Van Der Walt NO en 'n Ander (678/94) [1996] ZASCA 43 (29 March 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Fencing Act 31 of 1963 does not restrict the type of fence that may be erected on an agreed boundary line to stock-proof fences only. The Act's definitions and provisions are broad and encompass various types of fences, including game-proof fences. The reference to 'stock' in section 16(1) is not a statutory limitation but a practical measure for determining when a boundary fence is required. The board appointed under the Act has wide discretion to resolve disputes regarding the type and specifications of boundary fences, and its decision to authorise a game-proof fence was within its powers. The appellant's restrictive interpretation was...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 43
Parties
Appellant: Aden Landgoed Bk; Respondent: J J Van Der Walt NO; Respondent: Lesati Boerdery BK
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1996
Case Number
678/94
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
F H Grosskopf, Hefer, Nestadt, Howie, Marais
Legal Topics
Omheiningswet Interpretation, Boundary Fence Dispute, Wild Fencing, Statutory Construction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Omheiningswet Interpretation Boundary Fence Dispute Wild Fencing Statutory Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aden Landgoed Bk

Appellant

J J Van Der Walt NO

Respondent

Lesati Boerdery BK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Fencing Act 31 of 1963 restricts the type of fence permitted on an agreed boundary line to a stock-proof fence only.
  2. 2 Whether the decision of the appointed board to allow a game-proof fence exceeded its statutory powers.
  3. 3 Whether the reference to 'stock' in section 16(1) of the Act limits the scope of fencing to stock-proof fences.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Fencing Act 31 of 1963 does not restrict the type of fence that may be erected on an agreed boundary line to stock-proof fences only. The Act's definitions and provisions are broad and encompass various types of fences, including game-proof fences. The reference to 'stock' in section 16(1) is not a statutory limitation but a practical measure for determining when a boundary fence is required. The board appointed under the Act has wide discretion to resolve disputes regarding the type and specifications of boundary fences, and its decision to authorise a game-proof fence was within its powers. The appellant's restrictive interpretation was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.