Naude en Andere v Heatlie en Andere (180/99) [2001] ZASCA 3; [2001] 2 All SA 521 (A); 2001 (2) SA 815 (SCA) (23 February 2001)

Naude en Andere v Heatlie en Andere (180/99) [2001] ZASCA 3; [2001] 2 All SA 521 (A); 2001 (2) SA 815 (SCA) (23 February 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the National Water Act 36 of 1998 did not contain any express provision terminating pending proceedings before the Water Courts. The general rule is that, absent a clear legislative intention to the contrary, the rights of parties in pending litigation are determined by the law as it stood when the proceedings commenced. The Water Courts retained jurisdiction to complete matters already commenced. Furthermore, the irrigation boards, as statutory bodies with legal personality and powers under the Water Act 54 of 1956, were entitled to enter into settlement agreements in the execution of their statutory duties. The settlement agreement of 6 March 1997...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 3
Parties
Appellant: Pieter Stephanus Naude; Appellant: Pieter Stephanus Naude N.O.; Appellant: Margaretha Naude N.O.; Respondent: Thomas Heatlie; Respondent: Worcester-Oos Hoofbesproeiingsraad; Respondent: Hexrivier Besproeiingsraad; Respondent: Minister van Waterwese en Bosbou; Respondent: Samuel Henri Pelissier Naude; Respondent: Winola (Edms) Beperk; Respondent: Wilhelm Heinrich Naude; Respondent: Lourens Geldenhuys Naude; Respondent: Arnoldus Mauritius du Toit; Respondent: Daniël Viljoen Naude; Respondent: Roelof Johannes du Toit; Respondent: Hexvallei Besproeiingsraad
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2001
Case Number
180/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decisions of the Cape Water Court and Cape Provincial Division, Heard Together.
Outcome
Both appeals are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Vivier, Harms, Schutz, Streicher, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Water Rights, Statutory Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Water Courts, Settlement Agreements, Transitional Provisions
Land and Property Administrative Law Water Rights Statutory Interpretation Jurisdiction of Water Courts Settlement Agreements Transitional Provisions

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Stephanus Naude

Appellant

Pieter Stephanus Naude N.O.

Appellant

Margaretha Naude N.O.

Appellant

Thomas Heatlie

Respondent

Worcester-Oos Hoofbesproeiingsraad

Respondent

Hexrivier Besproeiingsraad

Respondent

Minister van Waterwese en Bosbou

Respondent

Samuel Henri Pelissier Naude

Respondent

Winola (Edms) Beperk

Respondent

Wilhelm Heinrich Naude

Respondent

Lourens Geldenhuys Naude

Respondent

Arnoldus Mauritius du Toit

Respondent

Daniël Viljoen Naude

Respondent

Roelof Johannes du Toit

Respondent

Hexvallei Besproeiingsraad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decisions of the Cape Water Court and Cape Provincial Division, Heard Together.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the abolition of Water Courts by the National Water Act 36 of 1998 terminated pending proceedings before those courts.
  2. 2 Whether irrigation boards had the authority under the Water Act 54 of 1956 to enter into settlement agreements regarding water rights.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement of 6 March 1997 was valid and enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the National Water Act 36 of 1998 did not contain any express provision terminating pending proceedings before the Water Courts. The general rule is that, absent a clear legislative intention to the contrary, the rights of parties in pending litigation are determined by the law as it stood when the proceedings commenced. The Water Courts retained jurisdiction to complete matters already commenced. Furthermore, the irrigation boards, as statutory bodies with legal personality and powers under the Water Act 54 of 1956, were entitled to enter into settlement agreements in the execution of their statutory duties. The settlement agreement of 6 March 1997...

Court Disposition

Both appeals are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of the declaratory order is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal against the dismissal of the point in limine is dismissed with costs.