Garlick v Smartt & Another
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Solomon CJ, Wessels JA, Curlewis JA and Stratford JA |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1927 |
| Hearing Date | 18 October 1927 |
| Court | Appellate Division |
Solomon, C.J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Cape Provincial Division affirming an order of a Water Court made in
Solomon, C.J.
an application by the appellant under sec. 32 (a) and (b) of the Irrigation Act of 1912. The application set forth that the appellant and the respondents are riparian proprietors on two public streams, the appellant being the owner of the lower farm, "Nazareth," and the respondents being the owners in divided portions of the two upper farms, "Groot" and "Klein Ida's Valley." The appellant bases his rights to the use of the water upon certain regulations, annexed to the application, which were framed by the Council of Justice on the 14th June, 1819, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 17th February, 1821. The appellant complained that the respondents had deprived him of the water to which he was entitled under the regulations, and he prayed (1) for an order declaring the rights of the parties under the regulations, and (2) an investigation, definition and recording of rights to the use of the water of the said stream, and an apportionment of the water for irrigation and other purposes between himself and the other riparian proprietors.
There is an alternative application in case the said regulations are held not to be binding upon him, to which it is not necessary to make further reference.
The respondents filed separate but substantially identical objections to the application, in which, after denying the correctness of the copy of the regulations annexed to the application and annexing another copy which they allege is a true and correct one, they say that "the proprietor of the farm 'Nazareth' has no right to the water of either of the said streams under the said regulations according to the true intent and meaning thereof. In the alternative, d the Court hold otherwise, the proprietor of the said farm has lost any right thereto which would be in conflict with prescriptive rights of the respondents as hereinafter set forth." Then follow the facts upon which the defence of prescription is based. It is unnecessary to refer to the rest of the objections of the respondents. To this paragraph from the opening words to the words "intent thereof " the applicant excepted as disclosing no defence to his claim. He also excepted to the alternative statement in the paragraph on the ground that it discloses no defence.
In the Water Court both exceptions were dismissed with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber-Stephen Products Co v Alrite Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Others
...from the language of the judgment or order as construed according to the usual, well-known rules. See Garlick G v Smartt and Another 1928 AD 82 at 87; West Rand Estates Ltd v New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd 1926 AD 173 at 188. Thus, as in the case of a document, the judgment or order and the c......
-
Morgan and Another v Brittan Boustred Ltd
...are precluded from raising the issue. It would have been permissible and indeed proper (see, for example, Garlick v Smartt and Another 1928 AD 82 at 87 and Schultz v Nel 1947 (2) SA 1060 (C)) for the appellants to have J © Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd 784 MORGAN AND ANOTHER v BRITTAN BOUSTRED......
-
Telkom SA Limited v Boswood QC v Damoyi
...the court is entitled to be informed of all such circumstances in all cases (cf Richter's case supra at 69; Garlick v Smartt and Another 1928 AD 82 at 87; Cairns (Pty) Ltd v Olaydon & Co Ltd (supra at 125)). But this does not mean that if sufficient certainty as to the meaning can be gather......
-
DA Cruz v Bernardo
...from the language of the judgment or order as construed according to the usual, well-known rules. See Garlick v Smartt and Another, 1928 AD 82 at p. 87; West Rand Estates Ltd. v New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., 1926 AD 173 at p. 188. Thus, as in the case of a document, the judgment or order ......
-
Weber-Stephen Products Co v Alrite Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Others
...from the language of the judgment or order as construed according to the usual, well-known rules. See Garlick G v Smartt and Another 1928 AD 82 at 87; West Rand Estates Ltd v New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd 1926 AD 173 at 188. Thus, as in the case of a document, the judgment or order and the c......
-
Morgan and Another v Brittan Boustred Ltd
...are precluded from raising the issue. It would have been permissible and indeed proper (see, for example, Garlick v Smartt and Another 1928 AD 82 at 87 and Schultz v Nel 1947 (2) SA 1060 (C)) for the appellants to have J © Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd 784 MORGAN AND ANOTHER v BRITTAN BOUSTRED......
-
Telkom SA Limited v Boswood QC v Damoyi
...the court is entitled to be informed of all such circumstances in all cases (cf Richter's case supra at 69; Garlick v Smartt and Another 1928 AD 82 at 87; Cairns (Pty) Ltd v Olaydon & Co Ltd (supra at 125)). But this does not mean that if sufficient certainty as to the meaning can be gather......
-
DA Cruz v Bernardo
...from the language of the judgment or order as construed according to the usual, well-known rules. See Garlick v Smartt and Another, 1928 AD 82 at p. 87; West Rand Estates Ltd. v New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., 1926 AD 173 at p. 188. Thus, as in the case of a document, the judgment or order ......