in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Regal v African Superslate (Pty.) Ltd.
1961 (4) SA 727. The facts appear therein and from the judgment of BOTHA, J.A. A J. F. Coaker, for the applicant: On the facts as found by him, the Judge a quo erred in refusing to grant a mandatory interdict along the lines of the order made in Prinsloo v, • Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 102 (A): large quantities of slate waste from an upstream quarry had been washed downstream and deposited on the neighbour’s land – The court held that the failure by the owner of the upstream property to take costly preventative measure to prevent further harm was reasonable in the circumstances, given that the harm suffered by the neighbour was.
( Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 102 (A) 107-108). In casu the Applicants have attempted to characterise the motive of the First Respondent as that of a shameless, uncaring, wreckless, lawless, profit-driven person.
Regal v African Superslate 1963 (A) There were two farms next to a river. The defendant’s farm had a quarry that had been developed by the previous owner. Slate broke off and damaged that plaintiff’s land. He did not claim damages just preventative measures. The court found that the only preventative measures that could be taken were to …
imported. In Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) 102 (A) – to which reference is hereafter made as the Superslate case – STEYN, CJ made the following general ob-servations (at 106H/107A) – As algemene beginsel kan iedereen met sy eiendom doen wat hy wil, al strek dit tot nadeel of mis-noeë van h ander, maar by aangrensende vasgoed, But the notion that the South African neighbour law is based on the English Law was put to rest by Steyn, CJ in Regal v . African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 102 (A) at 106: “Ons gemenereg behandel die onderwerp nie onder ‘n enkele rubriek wat met.
4. Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1965 (1) SA 102 (A) However, the situation is slightly more complicated with regard to “Type B” cases, such as those in Regal v African Superslate (slate dumped within the floodplain by the previous owner of the defendant’s property and washed 19. STUDY NOTES: NUISANCE IN SOUTH AFRICAN LAW away when the …
Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 102 (A) Relief: Damages will not be awarded for inconvenience, discomfort or annoyance. Wynberg Municipality v Dreyer 1920 AD 439 at 452 Actual …
9/1/2018 · As for PADCA’s alternative claim based on the law of neighbours, the SCA held in Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 102 (A) that our common law must be investigated fully before considering the English law of nuisance, which has not replaced our common law. And, importantly, that liability flowed from our conventional principles …
Unit 1 Summary What is auditing 2018 UDS 3B221 VVI3B21 Assignment 1 Delict definition 1-3 – Lecture notes 1-3 Law of Delict Quizzes Introduction To The Law Of Delict Unit 1 To Unit 10 Delict Notes Final – Exam pack Summary judgement Stedall and another v Aspeling and another Dev1 Term Research Report Guidelines Exam 28 November 2016, questions Sample/practice exam 2017, questions Unit 5 …
