Strydom v Liebenberg

The respondent (plaintiff) was the owner of various species of game kept on four adjoining portions of the farm Blaauwbank, which were enclosed by game-proof fencing. Two portions were owned by the plaintiff personally and two by a company of which he was sole shareholder. The company was liquidated and its two portions were sold to the appellants. The sales expressly excluded the game. After taking occupation, the appellants erected fences and denied the plaintiff access to the game on their respective properties. The plaintiff later sold his own portions to third parties, with delivery of the game to occur only once a separating game fence was erected. The plaintiff instituted a vindicatory action for return of all game on the appellants’ properties, alternatively payment of its value.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with costs. The order requiring the appellants to return all game on their respective properties stood, and the claim for payment of the game’s value was refused.

The case clarifies principles of ownership and vindication of game in South African property law, particularly that ownership of game does not lapse merely through loss of access or liquidation of a land-owning entity, and that purchasers of land do not acquire game unless expressly included. It also confirms the evidentiary burden required to claim the value of vindicated property.