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

The respondent was establishing a game farm of approximately 9,000 hectares, including a hotel complex, and intended to introduce 500 blue wildebeest onto the property. The appellant, who farmed with approximately 1,300 cattle on several properties totaling 7,500 hectares, sought to prevent this. Only one of the appellant's properties, a portion of the farm Boovensteoog (approximately 300 hectares), bordered the respondent's property, and less than half of that border would be affected because the respondent planned a separate camp for exotic animals where blue wildebeest would not be present. Blue wildebeest are carriers of bovine malignant catarrhal fever (snotsiekte), which is contagious and usually fatal to infected cattle. However, cattle can also contract the disease from sheep or black wildebeest. The disease is no longer classified as a controlled disease by authorities and is not considered a threat to the cattle farming industry. Statistics showed that in 2004, 125 cattle died nationwide from the disease, and 108 in 2005 - insignificant numbers relative to the national herd. The disease is largely seasonal, with negligible risk of infection for about half the year. The respondent notified neighbors of the intended introduction and undertook to pay for any cattle deaths from the disease. The appellant had himself kept blue wildebeest, which he removed days before launching the application. He also did not separate his sheep from his cattle, despite sheep also being carriers. The appellant had obtained a nature conservation permit for keeping blue wildebeest about a month before the application. The appellant knew but did not disclose in his founding affidavit that the risk of infection could be eliminated by keeping blue wildebeest one kilometer away from cattle.

• Whether the introduction of blue wildebeest on the respondent's property constituted an unreasonable interference with the appellant's property rights
• Whether the risk of bovine malignant catarrhal fever (snotsiekte) from blue wildebeest justified restricting the respondent's use of his property
• Whether the respondent's proposed use of his land for game farming with blue wildebeest was abnormal or unreasonable
• What constitutes actionable nuisance in the context of neighboring farming operations
• Whether the objective reasonableness test should be applied in determining unlawfulness in neighbor law disputes

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The High Court's refusal to grant the interdict preventing the respondent from introducing blue wildebeest was upheld.

An interference with a neighbor's property rights is not actionable as nuisance unless it is unreasonable. Reasonableness is determined by an objective evaluation of the circumstances, not by the subjective standard of the reasonable person. The test involves comparing the gravity of the harm caused with the utility of the conduct causing the harm. A landowner is entitled to use his land in a normal and reasonable manner, and game farming, including keeping blue wildebeest, constitutes normal and reasonable use in contemporary South African conditions. The mere possibility or risk of harm is insufficient to constitute actionable nuisance; the interference must be material or substantial. Neighbors must tolerate some degree of inconvenience or risk from the lawful use of neighboring property, particularly in extensive farming operations, in accordance with the principle of "give and take, live and let live."

The Court noted that while the High Court judge made an error in thinking the respondent (rather than the appellant) had obtained the permit, this error did not assist the appellant as the fact that the appellant obtained the permit actually weighed against him and in favor of the respondent. The Court observed that the High Court judge appeared to have incorrectly considered the "balance of convenience" at the end of his judgment when dealing with a final interdict (this principle applies to interim interdicts), but on a fair reading, it was clear the judge was actually weighing the competing interests of the parties as neighbors, not importing an inapplicable principle. The Court made illustrative observations about other potential inter-farm risks in extensive farming (such as increased tick populations from game farming, or disease outbreaks in cattle affecting neighboring game) to demonstrate the impracticality of prohibiting all activities that create some risk to neighbors.

This case is significant in South African law for clarifying the application of the law of nuisance in neighbor disputes, particularly in farming contexts. It reinforces that the test for unlawfulness in nuisance cases is objective reasonableness, not merely the reasonable apprehension of harm. The judgment emphasizes the balance required between competing property rights and the principle that neighbors must tolerate some degree of interference from lawful use of neighboring land ("give and take, live and let live"). It is particularly relevant to disputes arising from the expansion of game farming in South Africa and the interface between traditional livestock farming and wildlife-based land uses. The case demonstrates judicial recognition of game farming as a normal and reasonable use of land in contemporary South Africa.