South Africa Case Law

Van Wyk v Daberas Adventures CC (1431/2016)

Van Wyk v Daberas Adventures CC (1431/2016) [2021] ZANCHC 62 (19 November 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1431/2016

Judge

Williams

The court found that the Fencing Act does not require mandatory exhaustion of alternative remedies before approaching the High Court. Section 16 is permissive, not mandatory, and does not oust the court's jurisdiction. The respondent's reliance on the Maledu case was misplaced, as the statutory scheme under the Fencing Act differs from the MPRDA. Disputes of fact raised by the respondent were not material to the real issue, which was whether the fence constituted a give and take line under the Fencing Act. The court had previously addressed these aspects and found no merit in the respondent's…

Source excerpt

• Ejectment
• Fencing Act
• Alternative Remedy
• Jurisdiction
• Disputes Of Fact

Khanyisile v Transnet Soc Limited (07424/13)

Khanyisile v Transnet Soc Limited (07424/13) [2019] ZAGPJHC 357 (2 September 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

07424/13

Judge

Dosio

The High Court found Transnet negligent for failing to fence, warn, or control access to a hazardous rail yard, but held the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent.

• Negligence
• Contributory Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Fencing Act
• Apportionment Of Liability
• Personal Injury

Kaya Katsa CC v Le Cao and Another (3368/2017)

Kaya Katsa CC v Le Cao and Another (3368/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 138 (12 September 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3368/2017

Judge

M Opperman

The High Court dismissed claims for fencing contributions, access-control costs, and a zoning interdict, holding the fence served the applicant's game farming and the respondent was not liable.

• Fencing Act
• Right Of Way
• Declaratory Relief
• Final Interdict
• Agricultural Zoning
• Fencing-act

Dankbaar Safari (Pty) Ltd v Beukes (855/2007)

Dankbaar Safari (Pty) Ltd v Beukes (855/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 117 (24 July 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

855/2007

Judge

NEPGEN

Final interdict refused in a farm boundary dispute after the applicant failed to prove irreparable harm or any applicable breach of the Fencing Act.

• Fencing Act
• Boundary Dispute
• Final Interdict
• Irreparable Harm
• Final-interdict
• Irreparable-harm

Bennett Pringle (Pty) Ltd v Dreyer and Others (2737/2006)

Bennett Pringle (Pty) Ltd v Dreyer and Others (2737/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 41; [2008] 1 All SA 32 (E) (14 June 2007)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

2737/2006

Judge

Jones

The court found that the fencing board's decision was invalid because the jurisdictional facts required by section 16 of the Fencing Act were not present. There was no agreement or determination between two owners, as both farms were previously owned by a single owner. The existing fence was not objectively fair, as it resulted in a significant loss of land for the applicant without reciprocal benefit. The board failed to find that it was impracticable or inexpedient to build a fence along the surveyed boundary, and the applicant demonstrated that such a fence could be constructed. The board…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Fencing Act
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Declaratory Order
• Boundary Dispute

Kate's Hope Game Farm (Pty) Limited v Terblanchehoek Game Farm (Pty) Limited ()

Kate's Hope Game Farm (Pty) Limited v Terblanchehoek Game Farm (Pty) Limited () [1997] ZASCA 69; [1997] 4 All SA 185 (A) (10 September 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

334/96

Judges

Mahomed, Vivier, Olivier, Scott, Streicher

The court held the Fencing Act applied because the appellant failed to prove an enforceable agreement barred a give-and-take line fence.

• Fencing Act
• Give And Take Line
• Enforceability Of Contract
• Juristic Persons Membership
• Onus Of Proof
• Fencing-act