Krull v Els and Another (1064/2012) [2012] ZAECGHC 44 (15 May 2012)

Krull v Els and Another (1064/2012) [2012] ZAECGHC 44 (15 May 2012)

The court found that the applicant had conceded he did not have the necessary statutory permission from the Department of Roads and Transport to construct gates on a public road. The Certificate of Adequate Enclosure issued by the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs and Tourism did not confer authority to obstruct a public road. As such, the gates were erected unlawfully. The court further held that no interim order had in fact been issued by Sandi J, and therefore the contempt application could not succeed. The rule nisi was discharged and both applications were dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2012] ZAECGHC 44
Parties
Applicant: Elvin Victor Krull; Respondent: Johan Wynand Els; Respondent: Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Case Number
1064/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Contempt of Court
Outcome
Both the contempt of court application and the main application for confirmation of the rule nisi are dismissed with costs.
Judges
J.E Smith
Legal Topics
Public Road Obstruction, Adequate Enclosure Certificate, Interim Interdict, Contempt of Court
Land and Property Civil Procedure Public Road Obstruction Adequate Enclosure Certificate Interim Interdict Contempt of Court

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elvin Victor Krull

Applicant

Johan Wynand Els

Respondent

Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant obtained the necessary statutory permission to construct gates on a public road.
  2. 2 Whether the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs and Tourism had authority to approve the gates.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was in contempt of court for alleged breach of the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had conceded he did not have the necessary statutory permission from the Department of Roads and Transport to construct gates on a public road. The Certificate of Adequate Enclosure issued by the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs and Tourism did not confer authority to obstruct a public road. As such, the gates were erected unlawfully. The court further held that no interim order had in fact been issued by Sandi J, and therefore the contempt application could not succeed. The rule nisi was discharged and both applications were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Both the contempt of court application and the main application for confirmation of the rule nisi are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The contempt of court application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The rule nisi granted by Sandi J on 12 April 2012 is discharged with costs, including the costs of two counsel.