Hexvallei Besproeiingsraad v Geldenhuys NO en Andere

The appellants, the Hexvallei Besproeiingsraad and the Worcester-Oos Watergebruikersvereniging, represented downstream riparian farmers entitled to water from the Spekrivier, a public watercourse. The first respondent, Geldenhuys, was a trustee of Grootvlakte, a riparian farm on the Spekrivier, and also the owner of Matjiesrivier, a non-riparian farm in the Inverdoorn area, located beyond the watershed. Under a 1960 Cape Water Court order, Inverdoorn farmers were entitled to divert a maximum of two cusecs of water from the Spekrivier throughout the year. A diversion works with two sluices was constructed: sluice A permanently diverted two cusecs to Inverdoorn, while sluice B (adjustable) diverted additional water intended for riparian farmers. In September 2006, when riparian dams were full, Hexvallei closed sluice B to allow surplus water to flow downstream. Geldenhuys unlawfully broke the lock and opened sluice B, diverting more than two cusecs to Inverdoorn for his own use. The appellants sought an interdict in the Cape High Court, which was refused. On appeal, the relief sought became declaratory due to the passage of time.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with a declaratory order that no water may be diverted to the Inverdoorn area by means of the adjustable right-bank sluice from the Spekrivier. The respondents were ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the appellants’ costs.

The case is significant for South African water law as it reaffirms strict adherence to court orders regulating water diversion and clarifies that non-riparian landowners have no entitlement to public water beyond what is expressly authorised. It confirms the right of downstream users to obtain interdictory or declaratory relief against unlawful diversions and clarifies principles governing surplus water in public streams.