Graham Dick v Angela Christine Dick and Others

The appellant and first respondent were spouses in the process of divorcing after a long marriage involving shared business interests and property holdings. Three holiday homes, owned by corporate entities controlled by the parties, were historically used by the family. Following marital breakdown and the appellant’s dismissal from Transman (Pty) Ltd, security guards were placed at one of the properties (Mount Edgecombe) and a letter was delivered asserting Transman’s tenancy rights and restricting removal of property. The appellant alleged that the guards interfered with his peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the Mount Edgecombe, Pecanwood, and Somerset West (Erinvale) properties, and sought a final interdict restraining such interference. The High Court refused the interdict, leading to this appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where applicable.

The case reaffirms the strict requirements for obtaining a final interdict in South African law and illustrates the application of the Plascon-Evans rule in motion proceedings where material disputes of fact arise. It underscores that mere discomfort or subjective perceptions do not constitute unlawful interference, and that relief will be refused where no injury or reasonable apprehension of injury is proven.