South Africa Case Law

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Ltd t/a Crown River Safari (816/2016)

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Ltd t/a Crown River Safari (816/2016) [2018] ZASCA 34; 2018 (4) SA 206 (SCA) (27 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

816/2016

Judges

Navsa, Seriti, Saldulker, Swain, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the certificate contemplated in section 2(2)(a) of the Game Theft Act is not the sole prerequisite for the protection against loss of ownership provided by section 2(1)(a). The deeming provision was intended to facilitate proof that land is sufficiently enclosed to confine game, but does not preclude an owner from proving sufficient enclosure by other means. Interpreting the certificate as an exclusive requirement would defeat the legislative purpose of protecting owners who have taken adequate measures to enclose game. The court found that the legislativ…

Source excerpt

• Game Theft Act Interpretation
• Ownership Of Wild Animals
• Protected Areas Management
• Statutory Interpretation
• Development Of Common Law
• Constitutional Conservation Principles

Eastern Cape and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) t/a Crown River Safari and Another (1466/2012)

Eastern Cape and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) t/a Crown River Safari and Another (1466/2012) [2016] ZAECGHC 26 (5 May 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1466/2012

Judge

J.E Smith

The High Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the Game Theft Act’s wording clearly limits protection to land with a certificate of sufficient enclosure.

• Game Theft Act Interpretation
• Ownership Of Escaped Game
• Development Of Common Law
• Game-theft-act
• Statutory-interpretation
• Leave-to-appeal

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Lts t/a Crown River Safari and Another (1466/2013)

Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Lts t/a Crown River Safari and Another (1466/2013) [2016] ZAECGHC 2; 2016 (4) SA 457 (ECG) (18 February 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1466/2013

Judge

Smith

The court held that section 2(1)(a) of the Game Theft Act protects ownership of game only when a certificate of sufficient enclosure has been issued for the relevant species, as contemplated in section 2(2)(a). The certificate is a practical mechanism to avoid disputes and forensic investigation into enclosure adequacy, and its absence precludes statutory protection. The plaintiff failed to obtain such a certificate and thus cannot rely on the Act for protection. Regarding development of the common law, the court found no conflict with constitutional provisions or inadequacy in the spirit, pu…

Source excerpt

• Game Theft Act Interpretation
• Ownership Of Wild Animals
• Development Of Common Law
• Constitutional Application
• Protected Areas Management