New Invest 197 (Pty) Limited and Another v Moss

The first applicant owned Farm 1337 near East London, on which the second applicant resided. The respondent owned the neighbouring Farm 1338. A dispute arose when the respondent restricted the second applicant’s access to Farm 1337 by erecting and locking an electric gate across the Old Transkei Road, the only access route (via necessitas). The respondent also raised a dam wall and conducted earthworks which extended onto Farm 1337 without the applicants’ consent, destroying natural vegetation and a boundary fence. Additionally, the respondent excavated a trench across the tarred Old Transkei Road, damaging it. The applicants sought restoration of access, removal of the unlawful dam works, environmental rehabilitation, repair of the road and fence, interdictory relief, and costs.

The respondent was ordered to restore unfettered access to Farm 1337; was interdicted from obstructing access or conducting unauthorised activities on the farm; was directed to appoint environmental experts and rehabilitate the dam site and vegetation at his own cost; was ordered to restore the boundary fence and resurface the damaged road with tarmac; was restrained from contacting the second applicant except through attorneys; and was ordered to pay costs on an attorney-and-client scale.

The case affirms strong protection of landowners’ rights against unlawful encroachment and environmental degradation by neighbours. It underscores that unauthorised earthworks and dam construction on another’s land are unlawful and must be remedied through restoration of the status quo ante, in line with environmental law principles. The judgment also illustrates the High Court’s willingness to grant robust interdictory and restorative relief, including punitive costs, where conduct is persistent and high-handed.