Laforet N.O. and Another v Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism: Limpopo and Another (A798/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 638 (25 August 2014)

Laforet N.O. and Another v Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism: Limpopo and Another (A798/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 638 (25 August 2014)

The court found that the appellants failed to establish ownership of the cheetah at the time of its removal, as they had released it into the wild and thus relinquished control and intention to own. The evidence indicated an absence of control and intention to own after release. The Supreme Court of Appeal precedent cited by the appellants was distinguished, as in that case the animals were confined and controlled, whereas here the cheetah was free-roaming. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to the return of the cheetah, and the counter-application was correctly dismissed. The ex parte order was properly granted based on the facts available at the time, and the application to...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 638
Parties
Appellant: Michael Sam Laforet N.O.; Appellant: Patricia Juliet Laforet N.O.; Respondent: Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism: Limpopo; Respondent: Obed Moagi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2014
Case Number
A798/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Orders of the Court a Quo, Including Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal Record.
Outcome
The appeal failed; the application for condonation for late filing of the appeal record was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
J.W. Louw, Msimeki, Ratshibvumo
Legal Topics
Ownership of Wild Animals, Occupatio and Animus Possidendi, Permit Requirements, Spoliation, Contempt of Court
Land and Property Administrative Law Ownership of Wild Animals Occupatio and Animus Possidendi Permit Requirements Spoliation 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Sam Laforet N.O.

Appellant

Patricia Juliet Laforet N.O.

Appellant

Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism: Limpopo

Respondent

Obed Moagi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Orders of the Court a Quo, Including Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal Record.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were the owners of the cheetah at the time of its removal by the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte order authorising removal of the cheetah should have been set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the counter-application for the return of the cheetah should have been granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to establish ownership of the cheetah at the time of its removal, as they had released it into the wild and thus relinquished control and intention to own. The evidence indicated an absence of control and intention to own after release. The Supreme Court of Appeal precedent cited by the appellants was distinguished, as in that case the animals were confined and controlled, whereas here the cheetah was free-roaming. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to the return of the cheetah, and the counter-application was correctly dismissed. The ex parte order was properly granted based on the facts available at the time, and the application to...

Court Disposition

The appeal failed; the application for condonation for late filing of the appeal record was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for late filing of the appeal record is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.