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 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

Laforet N.O. and Another v Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism: Limpopo and Another (A798/2012)

Laforet N.O. and Another v Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism: Limpopo and Another (A798/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 638 (25 August 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A798/2012

Judges

J.W. Louw, Msimeki, Ratshibvumo

The court found that the appellants failed to establish ownership of the cheetah at the time of its removal, as they had released it into the wild and thus relinquished control and intention to own. The evidence indicated an absence of control and intention to own after release. The Supreme Court of Appeal precedent cited by the appellants was distinguished, as in that case the animals were confined and controlled, whereas here the cheetah was free-roaming. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to the return of the cheetah, and the counter-application was correctly dismissed. The ex…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Of Wild Animals
• Occupatio And Animus Possidendi
• Permit Requirements
• Spoliation
• Contempt Of Court

Mathenjwa NO and Others v Magudu Game Company (Pty) Ltd (258/08)

Mathenjwa NO and Others v Magudu Game Company (Pty) Ltd (258/08) [2009] ZASCA 57; 2010 (2) SA 26 (SCA) ; [2009] 4 All SA 15 (SCA) (28 May 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

258/08

Judges

Streicher, Nugent, Lewis, Ponnan, Kroon

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent owned the game in the reserve and had not lost ownership when access to the trust land was blocked.

• Ownership Of Wild Animals
• Passing Of Ownership
• Abstract Theory Of Transfer
• Game Farming
• Constructive Delivery
• Ownership-of-wild-animals