Gien v Gien

• Judge: Spoelstra Wn R
• Judgment Date: 20 March 1979
• Citation: 1979 (2) SA 1113 (T)
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Gien v Gien
1979 (2) SA 1113 (T)

1979 (2) SA p1113

Citation	1979 (2) SA 1113 (T)
Court	Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	Spoelstra Wn R
Heard	February 7, 1979; February 8, 1979; February 9, 1979; February 12, 1979; February 13, 1979; February 14, 1979
Judgment	March 20, 1979

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Hinder — Knalgeluide wat versteuring veroorsaak — Apparaat wat sodanige geluide maak deur plaaseienaar opgerig om ongediertes van groentetuin weg te jaag — Geluide het aangrensende eienaar en persone in sy huis versteur — Sy plaasdiere ook daardeur versteur — Belange wat apparaateienaar wou beskerm van beperkte omvang en van weinig ekonomiese betekenis — Gebruik van apparaat so drasties dat eienaar daarvan sy bevoegdhede wat deur sy eiendomsreg van sy grond verleen word heeltemal oorskry is — Interdik verleen — Reg ten aansien van botsende bevoegdhede van grondeienaars en die toepassing daarvan uiteengesit.

Headnote : Kopnota

Waar die onbeperkte bevoegdheid van een eienaar om 'n saak te gebruik en die bevoegdheid van 'n ander eienaar om onbelemmerde genot van sy saak te hê, met mekaar in botsing kom, word die regte beperk deur wedersydse verpligtinge op te lê. 'n Eienaar se eiendomsbevoegdhede strek dan slegs sover as wat daar 'n verpligting op sy buurman rus om die uitoefening van daardie bevoegdheid te verduur. Dit bring 'n verpligting vir die een eienaar mee om sy reg so uit te oefen dat hy nie daardie perk oorskry nie. Word dit oorskry, tree hy nie meer op ingevolge die bevoegdhede wat sy reg aan hom verleen nie en maak hy inbreuk op die reg van sy buurman. Dit is onregmatige optrede wat die reg nie duld nie en wat die grondslag vir 'n interdik kan vorm.

Die vraag of 'n eienaar 'n verpligting versuim het wat deur 'n ander eienaar se regte aan hom opgelê word, moet aan die hand van oorwegings van redelikheid en billikheid beantwoord word. By die beoordeling van redelikheid en billikheid, speel die dader, teen wie se handeling beswaar gemaak word, se gesindheid 'n rol. Terselfdertyd moet in gedagte gehou word dat 'n blote onbehoorlike motief nie 'n andersinds regmatige handeling in 'n onregmatige daad omskep nie. Die animus vicino nocendi maak 'n andersinds regmatige handeling onregmatig as dit die buurman benadeel en die dader geen voordeel daaruit trek nie. 'n Geringe voordeel vir die dader teenoor groot skade vir 'n ander gee aanleiding tot 'n afleiding dat die animus teenwoordig is. Die handeling sal ook onregmatig wees as dit onder die omstandighede van die bepaalde geval onredelik en onbillik is teenoor 'n ander eienaar. Redelike uitoefening van 'n reg, dws die redelike normale gebruik van die eiendom, is egter regmatig.

Respondent het 'n verskrikker-apparaat op sy plaas opgerig om bobbejane en ander ongediertes van sy groentetuin en 'n gebou wat as 'n stoor gebruik was, weg te jaag. Die apparaat het knalgeluide op gereelde tussenposes gemaak. Respondent het die apparaat so gestel dat dit dag en nag gewerk het. Applikant se plaas het aan respondent se plaas gegrens en die plase was in 'n stil, landelike en bosryke omgewing geleë waar hoofsaaklik veeboerdery bedryf word. Persone wat bedags sowel as snags in applikant se huis was, het die knalle steurend gevind en dit het hulle slaap onderbreek. Diere van die applikant het op die knalle gereageer tot so 'n mate dat 'n perd, wat andersins mak was, sy ruiter afgegooi het en moeilik tot bedaring gebring kon word en uiteindelik van die plaas verwyder was om weer hanteerbaar te raak. Beeste van die applikant het onrustig voorgekom en het probleme veroorsaak wanneer hulle gedip moes word. Dit was vir respondent moontlik om die knal van die apparaat te demp deur 'n verandering aan te bring sonder dat dit, op die oog af, die doel waarvoor dit opgerig was sou verydel het. Die omgewing wat deur die apparaat beskerm moes word, het 'n area met 'n deursnee van ongeveer 100 meter beslaan. Dit was ook nie nodig dat die apparaat snags moes werk nie. In 'n aansoek om 'n interdik teen die gebruik van die apparaat op so 'n wyse dat dit 'n steurnis op applikant se eiendom sou veroorsaak,

Beslis, dat, in 'n omgewing soos dié waarin die partye hulle bevind het, 'n aangrensende eienaar geregtig was om van sy buurman te verg dat hy nie 'n groter geraas veroorsaak as wat die redelike beoefening van sy ekonomiese aktiwiteite vereis nie.

Beslis, verder, dat die belange wat respondent wou beskerm van so 'n beperkte omvang en van weinig ekonomiese betekenis was en die aard van sy maatreëls so drasties in die betrokke omgewing was dat respondent sy bevoegdhede wat deur sy eiendomsreg aan hom verleen word om daardie ekonomiese belange te beskerm heeltemal oorskry het.

Beslis, derhalwe, dat respondent onregmatig inbreuk gemaak het op applikant se regte as eienaar van die aangrensende eiendom en dat applikant derhalwe op 'n interdik geregtig was.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Nuisance — Explosive noises causing a disturbance — Apparatus causing such erected by farm owner to chase wild animals from vegetable garden — Noises disturbing adjoining owner and persons in his house — His farm animals also disturbed thereby — Interests which apparatus owner wished to protect of limited extent and little economic value — Use of apparatus so drastic that

1979 (2) SA p1114

owner thereof completely exceeded the rights conferred on him by the ownership of his land — Interdict granted — Law relating to conflicting rights of landowners and the application thereof set out.

Headnote : Kopnota

Where the unlimited right of one owner to use property conflicts with the right of another owner to the free enjoyment of his property, the rights are limited by the imposition of mutual obligations. An owner's rights of ownership then extend only so far as there rests an obligation on his neighbour to endure the exercise of that right. That involves an obligation on the one owner so to exercise his right that he does not exceed that limit. If it is exceeded, he no longer acts according to the right which his right of ownership accords to him and he infringes the right of his neighbour. That is unlawful conduct which the law does not tolerate and which can form the basis of an interdict.

The question whether an owner fails to comply with an obligation imposed upon him by the rights of another owner must be answered according to considerations of reasonableness and fairness. In the consideration of reasonableness and fairness the mental state of the doer, against whose action objection is raised, plays a role. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that a mere improper motive does not change an otherwise lawful action into an unlawful deed. The animus vicino nocendi makes an otherwise lawful action unlawful if it prejudices the neighbour and the doer derives no benefit therefrom. A trivial benefit for the doer as opposed to great damage to another gives rise to an inference that the animus is present. The act will also be unlawful if it is under the circumstances of the particular case unreasonable and unfair towards the other owner. Reasonable exercise of a right, ie the reasonable normal use of the property, is however lawful.

1979 (2) SA p1115

Respondent had erected a scaring apparatus on his farm to chase away baboons and other wild animals from his vegetable garden and a building which was used as a store. The apparatus made explosive noises at regular intervals. Respondent had so set the apparatus that it worked day and night. Applicant's farm adjoined respondent's farm and was situated in a quiet, rural and wellwooded area where cattle farming was mainly carried on. People who were in the applicant's house during the daytime as well as the night found the explosive noises disturbing and it interrupted their sleep. Animals of the applicant reacted to the noises to such an extent that a horse, which was normally tame, threw its rider and could only be calmed down with difficulty and eventually had to be removed from the farm so that it could be made controllable. Cattle of the applicant appeared to be restless and caused problems when they had to be dipped. It was possible for the respondent to muffle the sound of the apparatus by adjusting it without appearing to frustrate the purpose for which it was erected. The area which had to be protected by the apparatus was approximately 100 metres in diameter. It was also not necessary for the apparatus to work at night. In an application for an interdict against the use of the apparatus in such a way that it caused a nuisance on applicant's property,

Held, that, in an area such as that in which the parties found themselves, an adjoining owner was entitled to require of his neighbour that he did not cause a greater noise than the reasonable carrying out of his economic activities demanded.

Held, further, that the interests which the respondent wished to protect were of such a limited extent and of little economic value and the nature of the measures so drastic in the particular area that respondent had completely exceeded the rights conferred on him by his right of ownership to protect those economic interests.

Held, therefore, that respondent had unlawfully infringed the applicant's rights as owner of the adjoining property and that applicant was therefore entitled to an interdict.

1979 (2)...