Hayes and Another v Du Plessis and Others (2683/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 232 (7 September 2022)

Hayes and Another v Du Plessis and Others (2683/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 232 (7 September 2022)

The court found that while the applicants had established a clear right to occupy the property and to freedom and security of person, they failed to present sufficient objective facts to ground a reasonable apprehension of future harm by the respondents. The evidence did not establish a credible link between the respondents' conduct and any actual or threatened injury. The incidents cited were either disputed or explained as ordinary farming activities, and the applicants delayed in seeking protection, undermining their claim of urgency. The court held that the applicants had alternative remedies, such as a claim for damages, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents....

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 232
Parties
Applicant: Carmen Hayes; Applicant: Francois Hayes; Respondent: Wynand Corne Du Plessis; Respondent: Rene Du Plessis; Respondent: Jan Harm Du Plessis
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2022
Case Number
2683/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Heard and Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Africa
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Reasonable Apprehension of Harm, Family Dispute, Occupation Rights, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Family and Children Final Interdict Reasonable Apprehension of Harm Family Dispute Occupation Rights Balance of Convenience

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carmen Hayes

Applicant

Francois Hayes

Applicant

Wynand Corne Du Plessis

Respondent

Rene Du Plessis

Respondent

Jan Harm Du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Heard and Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a clear right to an interdict against the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of harm justifying the grant of a final interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have an alternative satisfactory remedy available.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicants had established a clear right to occupy the property and to freedom and security of person, they failed to present sufficient objective facts to ground a reasonable apprehension of future harm by the respondents. The evidence did not establish a credible link between the respondents' conduct and any actual or threatened injury. The incidents cited were either disputed or explained as ordinary farming activities, and the applicants delayed in seeking protection, undermining their claim of urgency. The court held that the applicants had alternative remedies, such as a claim for damages, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for a final interdict is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.