Bakriver (Eiendoms) Bpk. v Fourie (384/82) [1984] ZASCA 32; 1984 (3) SA 29 (A) (29 March 1984)

Bakriver (Eiendoms) Bpk. v Fourie (384/82) [1984] ZASCA 32; 1984 (3) SA 29 (A) (29 March 1984)

The court held that the existing boundary fence between the parties' properties was erected as a jackal-proof fence under the previous Fencing Acts and, by virtue of the transitional provisions in section 33(2) of the Fencing Act 31 of 1963, retained its status as a jackal-proof fence under the current Act. The appellant's proposed changes constituted improvements to an existing fence, not the erection of a new fence. Therefore, section 7, which governs the erection of new fences and obliges adjoining owners to contribute to costs, was not applicable. Instead, section 11 applies to improvements, and the respondent is not obliged to contribute unless she derives benefit from the changes....

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 32
Parties
Appellant: Bakriver (Eiendoms) Beperk; Respondent: Engela Elizabeth Fourie
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1984
Case Number
384/82
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kotzé, Trengove, Viljoen, Smuts, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Omheiningswet Interpretation, Boundary Fence Dispute, Statutory Construction, Cost Sharing of Fencing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Omheiningswet Interpretation Boundary Fence Dispute Statutory Construction Cost Sharing of Fencing

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakriver (Eiendoms) Beperk

Appellant

Engela Elizabeth Fourie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to invoke section 7 of the Fencing Act for the erection of a jackal-proof boundary fence where such a fence already existed.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to contribute to the cost of the proposed changes to the existing fence under the Fencing Act.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's notices and subsequent dispute resolution procedures were valid under the Fencing Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the existing boundary fence between the parties' properties was erected as a jackal-proof fence under the previous Fencing Acts and, by virtue of the transitional provisions in section 33(2) of the Fencing Act 31 of 1963, retained its status as a jackal-proof fence under the current Act. The appellant's proposed changes constituted improvements to an existing fence, not the erection of a new fence. Therefore, section 7, which governs the erection of new fences and obliges adjoining owners to contribute to costs, was not applicable. Instead, section 11 applies to improvements, and the respondent is not obliged to contribute unless she derives benefit from the changes....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the lower court declaring the appellant's notices and procedures invalid is confirmed.