The appellant, Zeeman, owned a farm (the dominant tenement) with a long‑standing servitude of water pipeline over the respondents’ neighbouring farm (the servient tenement), owned by trustees of the De Wetshof Landgoed Trust. The servitude entitled Zeeman to convey water from the Goudmyn Canal across the servient property. In 2002–2004 the parties concluded a servitude agreement and notarial deed amending the servitude: the open cement furrow was replaced by underground pipelines and part of the route was shifted. The Trust assumed responsibility for installation, maintenance and repair of the pipelines. After the underground installation, the Trust planted vineyards across the new servitude route. Zeeman complained that the vineyards prevented him and his workers from walking along the route to inspect and maintain the pipeline and sought an order compelling removal of vineyards and infrastructure over a one‑metre strip on either side of the pipeline to allow access.
The appeal was dismissed with costs; the High Court’s refusal to order removal of the vineyards and grant broader access was upheld.
The case clarifies South African law on servitudes by confirming that while access is an inherent ancillary right of a servitude holder, its scope depends on the terms of the servitude and surrounding circumstances. It illustrates how contractual allocation of maintenance obligations can significantly limit the dominant owner’s access rights and balances servitude enforcement against undue burden on the servient tenement.