South Africa Case Law

Two Tyres Services (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (057109/22)

Two Tyres Services (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (057109/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 394 (11 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

057109/22

Judge

Mathunzi

The court found that clause 3 of the servitude prohibits the erection of buildings or structures within the servitude area, but does not classify uncovered parking bays as buildings or structures. The clause anticipates human activity, such as the placement of crops or rubbish, subject to height restrictions. The relevant safety regulations and standards require that any activity under the power lines must not exceed specified height limits, which the applicant's intended parking bays do not. The court held that the applicant's proposed use does not contravene the servitude, the Electrical Ma…

Source excerpt

• Servitude Interpretation
• Occupational Health And Safety
• Electrical Machinery Regulations
• Property Development
• Declaratory Relief

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Sisu Somhambi Electrical Construction CC and Another (42822/2021)

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Sisu Somhambi Electrical Construction CC and Another (42822/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 774 (20 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

42822/2021

Judge

de Vos

The High Court interpreted an Eskom servitude and held that the 55-metre restriction is split equally on either side of the centre line.

• Servitude Interpretation
• Notarial Deed
• Option Agreement
• Jurisdictional Challenge
• Non Joinder
• Stay Of Proceedings

Da Ribeira N.o and Others v Woudberg and Others (15203/2020)

Da Ribeira N.o and Others v Woudberg and Others (15203/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 193; 2023 (1) SA 530 (WCC) (23 September 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15203/2020

Judge

A De Wet

High Court exception and amendment dispute over whether a servitude holder may pipe a water furrow on servient land.

• Water Servitude
• Servitude Interpretation
• Exception Procedure
• Contractual Amendment
• Heritage Resources Permit
• Water-servitude

Honeyridge Centre (Pty) Ltd v Beyers Office Park Body Corporate and Others and Others (7558/2017)

Honeyridge Centre (Pty) Ltd v Beyers Office Park Body Corporate and Others and Others (7558/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 400 (25 May 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7558/2017

Judge

Nicholls

The High Court made an arbitration award an order of court and dismissed a counter-application for declaratory relief arising from a servitude dispute.

• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Servitude Interpretation
• Arbitration Act Section 31
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Declaratory Relief
• Body Corporate Rules

Buchanan v Hope NO and Others (81/2014)

Buchanan v Hope NO and Others (81/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 104 (3 July 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

81/2014

Judge

M Roberson

The court interpreted a servitude height restriction to require measurement from finished ground level and ordered compliance within three months.

• Servitude Interpretation
• Building Height Restriction
• Declaratory Order
• Contempt Of Court
• Servitude-interpretation
• Building-height-restriction

Van Der Burgh v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (64002/2012)

Van Der Burgh v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (64002/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 526 (11 October 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64002/2012

Judge

F Kathree-Setiloane

The High Court declared Eskom’s H-pole structures outside the servitude and ordered removal, while rejecting lis alibi pendens and breach-of-order arguments.

• Servitude Interpretation
• Vindicatory Relief
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Court Order Compliance
• Unlawful Occupation
• Servitude-interpretation

City of Cape Town v The Body Corporate of the Harbour's Edge Sectional Title Development (13234/12)

City of Cape Town v The Body Corporate of the Harbour's Edge Sectional Title Development (13234/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 137 (18 September 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13234/12

Judge

N P Boqwana

The court found that the wording of clause 3 of the notarial deed of servitude is clear and requires that underground parking be made available to the general public at market-related rates. The respondent's system, which requires a deposit and monthly rental for a parking disc, restricts access to only those willing to make a monthly commitment, thereby excluding the majority of the general public. The court held that 'general public' refers to anyone wishing to use the parking facilities, not just regular users of the scheme. The respondent's conduct increases the burden on the servient ten…

Source excerpt

• Servitude Interpretation
• Access Rights
• Sectional Title Scheme
• Final Interdict

Royal Hotel Riversdale (Pty) Ltd v Simon NO and Another (713/11)

Royal Hotel Riversdale (Pty) Ltd v Simon NO and Another (713/11) [2012] ZASCA 118 (18 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

713/11

Judges

Heher, Cachalia, Malan, Tshiqi, Pillay

The Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted a praedial servitude to protect parking for visitors to Portion B and held that a proposed building would infringe that right.

• Praedial Servitude
• Servitude Interpretation
• Parking Rights
• Contractual Intention
• Praedial-servitude
• Servitude-interpretation

Simon NO and Another v Royal Hotel Riversdale (Pty) Ltd

Simon NO and Another v Royal Hotel Riversdale (Pty) Ltd [2011] ZAWCHC 290; ; A522/2009 (15 June 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A522/2009

Judges

Dlodlo, Saldanha, Desai

Appeal over servitude interpretation upheld; the court held the proposed building would unlawfully interfere with the appellants’ servitudinal rights.

• Servitude Interpretation
• Restrictive Interpretation
• Parking Rights
• Commercial Property Access
• Servitude-interpretation
• Property-law

Kruger v Joles Eiendom (Pty) Ltd and Another (400/07)

Kruger v Joles Eiendom (Pty) Ltd and Another (400/07) [2008] ZASCA 138; 2009 (3) SA 5 (SCA) ; [2009] 1 All SA 553 (SCA) (27 November 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

400/07

Judges

MPATI, MTHIYANE, CLOETE, HEHER, KGOMO

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the servitude in question, described as 'for the common use of' the two properties, was at best ambiguous. Applying the principle that servitudes must be interpreted restrictively, the court found that the servitude should be limited to use of the passage as a passageway for access, not for broader urban servitude purposes. There was no evidence of use or circumstances at the time of creation to support a wider interpretation. The evidence showed that the servitude had not been exercised for over thirty years, satisfying the requirements for extinction by…

Source excerpt

• Servitude Interpretation
• Extinctive Prescription
• Acquisitive Prescription
• Title Deed Conditions