Pole and Another v Stolz and Another (1303/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 22 (21 June 2007)

Pole and Another v Stolz and Another (1303/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 22 (21 June 2007)

The court found that the applicants had provided sufficient evidence of repeated and unreasonable noise emanating from the respondents' property, which materially interfered with the applicants' comfort and quiet enjoyment of their home. The conduct of the respondents constituted a nuisance in law. The applicants were entitled to relief in the form of an interdict restraining the respondents from causing further disturbance. The court applied the common law principles relating to nuisance and the requirements for an interdict, concluding that the applicants had met the threshold for intervention.

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Lesley Pole; Applicant: Nicholas Trafford Ridley Pole; Respondent: Johan Stoltz; Respondent: Mrs Stoltz
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Case Number
1303/2007
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict
Outcome
Application granted; interdict issued against the respondents.
Judges
Khami Makhafola
Legal Topics
Interdict, Nuisance, Disturbance of Peace
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interdict Nuisance Disturbance of Peace

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley Pole

Applicant

Nicholas Trafford Ridley Pole

Applicant

Johan Stoltz

Respondent

Mrs Stoltz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents committed a nuisance by creating excessive noise on their property adjacent to the applicants' dwelling.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict restraining the respondents from causing disturbance and interference with their comfort and peace.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had provided sufficient evidence of repeated and unreasonable noise emanating from the respondents' property, which materially interfered with the applicants' comfort and quiet enjoyment of their home. The conduct of the respondents constituted a nuisance in law. The applicants were entitled to relief in the form of an interdict restraining the respondents from causing further disturbance. The court applied the common law principles relating to nuisance and the requirements for an interdict, concluding that the applicants had met the threshold for intervention.

Court Disposition

Application granted; interdict issued against the respondents.

Orders

  • The respondents are interdicted from creating or permitting excessive noise on their property that disturbs the applicants' comfort, convenience, peace, or quiet.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.