Rautenbach v Ongegunde Vryheid CC (CA186/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 44 (18 June 2007)

Rautenbach v Ongegunde Vryheid CC (CA186/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 44 (18 June 2007)

The appellant failed to prove that his property was landlocked or that the proposed servitude was the only reasonably sufficient means of access. The evidence established that the appellant could construct an alternative access road over his own property, which would provide reasonable access to his cottage. The inconvenience of carrying goods a short distance does not amount to necessity. The compensation offered was inadequate, and the imposition of a permanent servitude would cause significant diminution in the value and enjoyment of the respondent's property. The magistrate's decision to dismiss the claim was correct and is upheld on appeal.

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 44
Parties
Appellant: Carl Wynand Rautenbach; Respondent: Ongegunde Vryheid CC
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2007
Case Number
CA186/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Jones, Dambuza
Legal Topics
Servitude Ex Necessitate, Right of Way, Access to Landlocked Property, Compensation for Servitude
Land and Property Civil Procedure Servitude Ex Necessitate Right of Way Access to Landlocked Property Compensation for Servitude

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Wynand Rautenbach

Appellant

Ongegunde Vryheid CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a servitutal right of way ex necessitate over the respondent's property.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's property is landlocked and lacks reasonable access to a public road.
  3. 3 Whether the proposed servitude is the only reasonably sufficient means of access to the appellant's cottage.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove that his property was landlocked or that the proposed servitude was the only reasonably sufficient means of access. The evidence established that the appellant could construct an alternative access road over his own property, which would provide reasonable access to his cottage. The inconvenience of carrying goods a short distance does not amount to necessity. The compensation offered was inadequate, and the imposition of a permanent servitude would cause significant diminution in the value and enjoyment of the respondent's property. The magistrate's decision to dismiss the claim was correct and is upheld on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs, including the costs of two counsel.