PGB Boerdery Beleggings (Edms) Bpk v Somerville 62 (Edms) Bpk and Another

The appellants conducted large-scale commercial cattle farming. The first respondent was developing a game farm of approximately 9 000 hectares, including tourism facilities, and intended to introduce about 500 blue wildebeest onto the property. Blue wildebeest are known carriers of bovine malignant catarrhal fever ("snotsiekte"), a disease that can be fatal to cattle. Although the appellants feared transmission of the disease to their cattle, the disease was no longer classified as a controlled disease, had a low national incidence, and was largely seasonal. Only a limited portion of the appellants’ land directly bordered the respondent’s property, and the appellants practised rotational grazing, enabling them to mitigate risk. The respondent offered to compensate the appellants for any cattle deaths caused by the disease. Despite this, the appellants sought a final interdict prohibiting the respondent from introducing blue wildebeest or, alternatively, compelling the erection of fencing one kilometre from the boundary.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the refusal of the final interdict was confirmed.

The case is a leading authority on neighbour law and nuisance in South African law, clarifying that alleged nuisances must be assessed using an objective reasonableness standard that balances harm against the social and economic utility of the complained-of conduct. It limits the reach of earlier decisions suggesting that a mere apprehension of harm suffices for a final interdict.