Bennett Pringle (Pty) Ltd v Dreyer and Others (2737/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 41; [2008] 1 All SA 32 (E) (14 June 2007)

Bennett Pringle (Pty) Ltd v Dreyer and Others (2737/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 41; [2008] 1 All SA 32 (E) (14 June 2007)

The court found that the fencing board's decision was invalid because the jurisdictional facts required by section 16 of the Fencing Act were not present. There was no agreement or determination between two owners, as both farms were previously owned by a single owner. The existing fence was not objectively fair, as it resulted in a significant loss of land for the applicant without reciprocal benefit. The board failed to find that it was impracticable or inexpedient to build a fence along the surveyed boundary, and the applicant demonstrated that such a fence could be constructed. The board also considered irrelevant factors, such as the views of the previous owner, which should have...

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 41
Parties
Applicant: Bennett Pringle (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Johannes Frederick Dreyer; Respondent: Jock Eric Danckwerts; Respondent: Douglas Christopher Louw; Respondent: Arthur G Moorcroft
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2007
Case Number
2737/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Application for Review and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application for review granted; fencing board's decision set aside; declaratory order issued in favour of applicant; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Jones
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Fencing Act, Jurisdictional Facts, Declaratory Order, Boundary Dispute
Administrative Law Land and Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Fencing Act Jurisdictional Facts Declaratory Order Boundary Dispute

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bennett Pringle (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Johannes Frederick Dreyer

Respondent

Jock Eric Danckwerts

Respondent

Douglas Christopher Louw

Respondent

Arthur G Moorcroft

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Application for Review and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fencing board's decision that the existing fence is a 'give and take' boundary under section 16 of the Fencing Act was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the jurisdictional facts required by section 16 of the Fencing Act were present.
  3. 3 Whether the board considered irrelevant factors and failed to consider material facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the fencing board's decision was invalid because the jurisdictional facts required by section 16 of the Fencing Act were not present. There was no agreement or determination between two owners, as both farms were previously owned by a single owner. The existing fence was not objectively fair, as it resulted in a significant loss of land for the applicant without reciprocal benefit. The board failed to find that it was impracticable or inexpedient to build a fence along the surveyed boundary, and the applicant demonstrated that such a fence could be constructed. The board also considered irrelevant factors, such as the views of the previous owner, which should have...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; fencing board's decision set aside; declaratory order issued in favour of applicant; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The period of 180 days laid down by section 7(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act is extended to the date of service of this application.
  • The decision of the fencing board dated 11 September 2003 is reviewed and set aside.