Badenhorst N.O and Others v Adowa Infrastructure Managers (RF) (Pty) Ltd and Others (16888/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 273 (30 June 2025)

Badenhorst N.O and Others v Adowa Infrastructure Managers (RF) (Pty) Ltd and Others (16888/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 273 (30 June 2025)

The court found that the Trust and its predecessors in title exercised exclusive control and possession of the disputed portion of land for over thirty years, fenced it off, incorporated it into their property, and sold it as part of the land. These acts were performed openly and adverse to the true owners, who never challenged the possession until 2023. Although there was no direct evidence of the subjective intention (animus domini), the uncontested facts supported the inference that the Trust and its predecessors possessed the land as owners. The requirements of section 1 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 were fulfilled, and the Trust acquired ownership of the disputed portion by...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 273
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Xavier Badenhorst N.O; Applicant: Tamara Nicola Glick N.O; Applicant: Alan Bryer N.O; Applicant: Cedric Keith Glick N.O; Applicant: Nadine Glick N.O; Applicant: Denise Heather Bryer N.O; Respondent: Adowa Infrastructure Managers (RF) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Case Number
16888/2024
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment Delivered After Opposed Application
Outcome
Application granted. Declaratory order issued in favour of the Tamric Trust.
Judges
Slingers
Legal Topics
Acquisitive Prescription, Animus Domini, Ownership, Prescription Act, Deeds Registries Act
Land and Property Acquisitive Prescription Animus Domini Ownership Prescription Act Deeds Registries Act

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Xavier Badenhorst N.O

Applicant

Tamara Nicola Glick N.O

Applicant

Alan Bryer N.O

Applicant

Cedric Keith Glick N.O

Applicant

Nadine Glick N.O

Applicant

Denise Heather Bryer N.O

Applicant

Adowa Infrastructure Managers (RF) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment Delivered After Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tamric Trust acquired ownership of the disputed portion of land by acquisitive prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the Trust and its predecessors possessed the disputed land openly, as owners, for an uninterrupted period of thirty years.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 1 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 are fulfilled.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Trust and its predecessors in title exercised exclusive control and possession of the disputed portion of land for over thirty years, fenced it off, incorporated it into their property, and sold it as part of the land. These acts were performed openly and adverse to the true owners, who never challenged the possession until 2023. Although there was no direct evidence of the subjective intention (animus domini), the uncontested facts supported the inference that the Trust and its predecessors possessed the land as owners. The requirements of section 1 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 were fulfilled, and the Trust acquired ownership of the disputed portion by...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaratory order issued in favour of the Tamric Trust.

Orders

  • The Tamric Trust (T360/92) is declared the owner, by acquisitive prescription, of the portion of land depicted as the 'encroachment area' in the land surveyor certificate annexed to the founding affidavit of Cedric Keith Glick as CKG3, situated between the cadastral boundary of erven 1[...]2 and 1[...], Woodstock,...
  • The costs of the application shall be borne by the first respondent on scale B.