Joubert and Others v Benede Blyderivier Watergebruikersvereniging and Another (189/05) [2006] ZASCA 53; [2006] 4 All SA 549 (SCA); 2007 (4) SA 80 (SCA) (31 March 2006)

Joubert and Others v Benede Blyderivier Watergebruikersvereniging and Another (189/05) [2006] ZASCA 53; [2006] 4 All SA 549 (SCA); 2007 (4) SA 80 (SCA) (31 March 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 1987 ministerial regulation does not confer a right on riparian owners to receive a specified quantity of water at their farm sluices, but rather sets the maximum amount that may be extracted from the state waterwork. The appellants' historical practice of receiving more water than the statutory maximum was unlawful, and the Watergebruikersvereniging acted within its powers in limiting water delivery to the regulated maximum at the point of extraction. The concept of 'existing lawful water use' under the National Water Act refers only to uses authorised by law prior to the Act's commencement, and the appellants failed to establish such a right....

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 53
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Joubert; Appellant: Lourens Christiaan Jansen van Vuren; Appellant: Johannes P K Meintjies NO; Appellant: Louis Redelinghuys; Appellant: Christo Redelinghuys; Appellant: Francois Richard Erasmus; Appellant: Anna-Marie Elizabeth van Olst; Appellant: Dawid Schalk van der Merwe; Appellant: Andries Gideon Jacobus Jansen van Vuuren; Appellant: Abraham Stephanus Erasmus; Appellant: Christopher Arthur Huddle; Respondent: Benede Blyderivier Watergebruikersvereniging; Respondent: Minister van Waterwese en Bosbou
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2006
Case Number
189/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Urgent Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of both respondents to be paid jointly and severally by the appellants.
Judges
Howie, Streicher, Navsa, Conradie, Heher
Legal Topics
National Water Act, Existing Water Rights, Statutory Interpretation, Interim Interdict, Ministerial Regulation
Land and Property Administrative Law National Water Act Existing Water Rights Statutory Interpretation Interim Interdict Ministerial Regulation

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

Parties

Johannes Joubert

Appellant

Lourens Christiaan Jansen van Vuren

Appellant

Johannes P K Meintjies NO

Appellant

Louis Redelinghuys

Appellant

Christo Redelinghuys

Appellant

Francois Richard Erasmus

Appellant

Anna-Marie Elizabeth van Olst

Appellant

Dawid Schalk van der Merwe

Appellant

Andries Gideon Jacobus Jansen van Vuuren

Appellant

Abraham Stephanus Erasmus

Appellant

Christopher Arthur Huddle

Appellant

Benede Blyderivier Watergebruikersvereniging

Respondent

Minister van Waterwese en Bosbou

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Urgent Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have a right to receive a specified quantity of water at their farm sluices under the National Water Act 36 of 1998.
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'existing lawful water use' in the context of the National Water Act and the 1987 ministerial regulation.
  3. 3 Whether the Watergebruikersvereniging acted lawfully in limiting water delivery to the statutory maximum at the point of extraction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 1987 ministerial regulation does not confer a right on riparian owners to receive a specified quantity of water at their farm sluices, but rather sets the maximum amount that may be extracted from the state waterwork. The appellants' historical practice of receiving more water than the statutory maximum was unlawful, and the Watergebruikersvereniging acted within its powers in limiting water delivery to the regulated maximum at the point of extraction. The concept of 'existing lawful water use' under the National Water Act refers only to uses authorised by law prior to the Act's commencement, and the appellants failed to establish such a right....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of both respondents to be paid jointly and severally by the appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents, jointly and severally.