Botha v Andrade

The appellant owned a small farm and sought a peaceful retirement. The first and second respondents owned a neighbouring farm on which they operated a sawmill and brick-making business through close corporations. These activities caused constant noise, dust pollution, potential fire hazards, and water pollution, allegedly constituting a nuisance and contravening municipal zoning conditions. Despite conditional municipal approval for rezoning, the respondents failed to comply with conditions aimed at mitigating the nuisance. The appellant obtained a prohibitory interdict in the magistrates’ court. The respondents challenged the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the value of the matter exceeded the R100 000 monetary limit under s 29(1)(g) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the respondents’ appeal with costs. The magistrates’ court’s interdict was reinstated.

The case clarifies the relationship between ss 29 and 30 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and establishes how jurisdictional monetary limits apply to interdict proceedings. It provides authoritative guidance on determining the value of the matter in dispute and confirms that business value or turnover is not decisive where only part of the activity is challenged as unlawful.