South Africa Case Law

Christopher v Verster and Others (9001/2020)

Christopher v Verster and Others (9001/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 114 (4 June 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9001/2020

Judge

Henney

The court found that while the respondents' business technically qualifies as a home occupation under the DMS, they contravened specific provisions by exceeding the permitted area and operating hours. The respondents also breached the Animal By-law by keeping more than six dogs over six months without a permit and allowing barking beyond prescribed limits. The evidence established that the noise generated by Puppy Town was continuous, repetitive, and materially interfered with the applicant's use and enjoyment of his property, constituting a common law nuisance. The applicant's complaints to…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning By Law
• Noise Nuisance
• Common Law Nuisance
• Animal By Law
• Interdictory Relief

Van der Merwe and Others v Drenched Boxing (Pty) Ltd and Others (19222/2020)

Van der Merwe and Others v Drenched Boxing (Pty) Ltd and Others (19222/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 93; [2021] 3 All SA 281 (WCC) (5 May 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19222/2020

Judge

Mangcu-Lockwood

High Court noise nuisance case dismissed for lack of a final interdict, after factual disputes and mitigation efforts could not be resolved on affidavit.

• Noise Nuisance
• Final Interdict
• Common Law Nuisance
• Western Cape Noise Control Regulations
• Dispute Of Fact
• Alternative Remedy

Foster v Kirst (8526/2019)

Foster v Kirst (8526/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 93 (1 July 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8526/2019

Judge

Slingers

The High Court dismissed both a rescission bid and a contempt application arising from a neighbour noise dispute and final interdict.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Contempt Of Court
• Noise Nuisance
• Default Judgment
• Common Law Nuisance
• Rescission-of-judgment

Distressed Mining Community of Ogies v Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (12014/028477)

Distressed Mining Community of Ogies v Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (12014/028477) [2019] ZAGPJHC 226 (8 July 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12014/028477

Judge

Lagrange

The court dismissed an interdict sought over mining-related dust, noise, blasting, and water pollution at Ogies, finding no actionable nuisance on the papers.

• Common Law Nuisance
• Interdictory Relief
• Dust And Noise Pollution
• Mining Rights
• Air Quality Regulation
• Water Pollution

Jist Project Management Works CC v Delta Transport And Waste CC and Another; In Re: Jist Project Management Works CC v Delta Transport And Waste CC and Another (27214/10 & 5176/11)

Jist Project Management Works CC v Delta Transport And Waste CC and Another; In Re: Jist Project Management Works CC v Delta Transport And Waste CC and Another (27214/10 & 5176/11) [2012] ZAWCHC 397 (5 March 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

27214/10 & 5176/11

Judge

Dolamo

High Court held that the applicant failed to prove wilful or unnecessary obstruction of traffic on Nebula Crescent and discharged the interdict and contempt rule nisi.

• Final Interdict
• Public Road Obstruction
• National Road Traffic Act
• Contempt Of Court
• Common Law Nuisance
• Final-interdict

Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (20952/08)

Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (20952/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 100; 2010 (5) SA 367 (WCC) (24 June 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20952/08

Judge

Owen Rogers AJ

The court found that the Department of Home Affairs is bound by the Land Use Planning Ordinance and the applicable zoning scheme. The consent use granted by the City in 2000 did not authorise the operation of a refugee reception centre, and conditions relating to parking and building plans were not complied with. The Department's activities resulted in an unreasonable interference with neighbouring businesses, amounting to a common law nuisance. The court held that the Department's statutory obligations under the Refugees Act do not justify unlawful conduct. The applicants were entitled to re…

Source excerpt

• Zoning Scheme Violation
• Common Law Nuisance
• Consent Use Conditions
• Municipal Planning
• Refugees Act Compliance
• Statutory Interpretation