Stoffberg en Andere v All Stones Bk en Andere, All Stones Bk en Andere v Waaihoek Besproeiingsraad en Andere (10/98, 495/97) [2000] ZASCA 3; [2000] 2 All SA 8 (A); [2000] JOL 6281 (A) (16 March 2000)

Stoffberg en Andere v All Stones Bk en Andere, All Stones Bk en Andere v Waaihoek Besproeiingsraad en Andere (10/98, 495/97) [2000] ZASCA 3; [2000] 2 All SA 8 (A); [2000] JOL 6281 (A) (16 March 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Water Court erred in interpreting the 1822 settlement agreement as granting the applicants a right to one-third of the water from Waaihoekkloof. Historical documents and expert evidence established that the agreement referred only to Leeuwekloof (Jan du Toitskloof), and that the applicants, as owners of Olifantsberg, were not entitled to water from Waaihoekkloof. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish any preferential rights under the Water Act, as the facts did not support such entitlement. The application for an interdict to remove works was dismissed, as the relevant statutory provisions did not confer substantive rights on the...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 3
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Petrus Jacobus Stoffberg; Appellant: Phillipus Jacobus Viljoen; Appellant: Die Waaihoek Besproeiingsraad; Appellant: Die Jan du Toitsrivier Besproeiingsraad; Appellant: Daardie Lede van die Applikant Gelys op Aanhangsel HAK 6; Appellant: Daardie Lede van die Applikant Gelys op Aanhangsel HAK 7; Appellant: Die Oorblywende Geregistreerde Eienaars van Onderverdelings van die Oorspronklike Uitgifte Eendraght Nr 250; Appellant: Die Oorblywende Geregistreerde Eienaars van Onderverdelings van die Oorspronklike Uitgifte Wyzersdrift Nr 386; Respondent: All Stones BK; Respondent: Michael John Allsop N.O.; Respondent: Julianne Greinagh Allsop N.O.; Respondent: Andrew Llewellyn Robinson N.O.; Respondent: Mervyn Golden N.O.; Respondent: Sewesorg BK; Respondent: Helena Johanna Naudè; Respondent: Dirk Jacobus Strauss Pretorius; Respondent: Die Olifantsberg Besproeiingsraad; Respondent: G W van Zyl
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2000
Case Number
10/98, 495/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Water Court and Application for Further Evidence
Outcome
Appeal in the main application upheld; applicants' claims dismissed with costs. Appeal in the spoliation application dismissed as moot.
Judges
Vivier, Grosskopf, Harms, Plewman, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Water Rights, Interpretation of Settlement Agreements, Riparian Rights, Preferential Rights, Spoliation, Costs Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Water Rights Interpretation of Settlement Agreements Riparian Rights Preferential Rights Spoliation Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Petrus Jacobus Stoffberg

Appellant

Phillipus Jacobus Viljoen

Appellant

Die Waaihoek Besproeiingsraad

Appellant

Die Jan du Toitsrivier Besproeiingsraad

Appellant

Daardie Lede van die Applikant Gelys op Aanhangsel HAK 6

Appellant

Daardie Lede van die Applikant Gelys op Aanhangsel HAK 7

Appellant

Die Oorblywende Geregistreerde Eienaars van Onderverdelings van die Oorspronklike Uitgifte Eendraght Nr 250

Appellant

Die Oorblywende Geregistreerde Eienaars van Onderverdelings van die Oorspronklike Uitgifte Wyzersdrift Nr 386

Appellant

All Stones BK

Respondent

Michael John Allsop N.O.

Respondent

Julianne Greinagh Allsop N.O.

Respondent

Andrew Llewellyn Robinson N.O.

Respondent

Mervyn Golden N.O.

Respondent

Sewesorg BK

Respondent

Helena Johanna Naudè

Respondent

Dirk Jacobus Strauss Pretorius

Respondent

Die Olifantsberg Besproeiingsraad

Respondent

G W van Zyl

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Water Court and Application for Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1822 settlement agreement granted the applicants a right to one-third of the water from Waaihoekkloof.
  2. 2 Whether the Water Court's interpretation of the historical documents was correct.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have preferential rights as riparian owners under the Water Act 54 of 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Water Court erred in interpreting the 1822 settlement agreement as granting the applicants a right to one-third of the water from Waaihoekkloof. Historical documents and expert evidence established that the agreement referred only to Leeuwekloof (Jan du Toitskloof), and that the applicants, as owners of Olifantsberg, were not entitled to water from Waaihoekkloof. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish any preferential rights under the Water Act, as the facts did not support such entitlement. The application for an interdict to remove works was dismissed, as the relevant statutory provisions did not confer substantive rights on the...

Court Disposition

Appeal in the main application upheld; applicants' claims dismissed with costs. Appeal in the spoliation application dismissed as moot.

Orders

  • The appeal in the main application (case no W 1/95 and HHA 10/98) succeeds with costs, except for the costs of the application to lead further evidence. The applicants (respondents in the appeal) are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally.
  • The order of the Water Court in the main application is set aside and replaced with: 'The applicants' claims are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel and the qualifying costs of experts Van der Merwe and Le Brun. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally.'