6 Briefly discuss the facts and decision in Malherbe v Ceres Municipality ( (4 ) SA (A)). (10) Facts The appellant, Malherbe, approached the court for an. In Malherbe v Ceres Municipality () the Court confirmed that if the branches of your neighbour’s tree overhang onto your property, or where the roots grown. prescribed text book. ▫ Malherbe v Ceres Municipality 4 SA A.(Case number  in the case book). ▫ Gien v Gien 2 SA T.(Case number  .
|Published (Last):||7 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||9.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In terms of our private nuisance law, every property owner has a right to unimpeded enjoyment of his land. Vogel and Crewe were neighbours since and in they jointly erected a concrete fence between their properties.
However, do not go rushing headlong into litigation if there are other less drastic measures which could be taken to deal with the problem.
Requests therefore must be directed to the Area Manager for City Parks for the particular area where the tree is located. If Crewe should refuse, Vogel will then be entitled to cut off the overhanging branches, in line with the umnicipality.
Applying these principles, the Court indicated that it is also crucial to municipalitt in mind that trees form an essential part of our human environment, not only in terms of giving us aesthetic pleasure, but also functionally in the provision of shade and oxygen and environmental soundness.
Clearly a conflict between these two rights is possible and when courts are presented with such disputes, a balance of the interests of the two parties is considered. Should you require legal advice please contact one of our municipallity directly at the given contact addresses. No case had been made out why the removal of the trees was necessary. They took into account the benefits of protecting the tree, being its visual pleasure, shade, and the oxygen it produced, as opposed to the trouble it was causing Crewe.
Therefore, if you approach the Court and present a convincing case why the removal of trees is necessary, the Court will grant you the relief sought. Such materials mnicipality for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments.
Hopefully you will be able to resolve tree-related issues with your neighbour in a courteous way, and remember, you also have the right to municipalitg your property. And, like any other living thing, trees also require in return for pleasure provided a certain amount of effort and tolerance. Courts will not hastily decide that trees be removed if there are other less drastic measures which could municipaity taken to deal kalherbe the problem rather than removing the trees.
Requests for pruning or removal of trees on municipal property shall be done by City Parks or its appointed service providers. Trees with lateral root systems are often a culprit in neighbourly disputes. From the above it is clear that the court will only order the removal of a tree should the roots pose a real and immediate threat of damaging the property.
ENCROACHING TREES, BRANCHES, LEAVES AND ROOTS
Rightly so as these irritations may seem trivial when weighed against the value of kunicipality civil relations with those living in close proximity to you. Due to the threat to the property the house the court ordered the municipality to remove the trees. As there are more and more of us, property owners need to be increasingly tolerant of the inevitable problems caused by the shrinking size of properties and the greater proximity of neighbours and their trees. Based on the evidence before it, the Court dismissed the application as: The branches can only be cut in line with the boundary.
Tree Nuisance – STBB
This will only result in high legal costs and an inevitable, irreversible falling out with your neighbour. The difficulty, however, arises when the actions of our neighbours, whether direct or indirect, make us suffer some kind of loss, whether this be a loss of the use and enjoyment of our property or a monetary loss.
They will not order the removal of overhanging branches for the shedding of leaves. Clearly a conflict between these two rights is possible and when courts are presented with such disputes, a balance of the interests of the two parties is considered. Good fences make good neighbours, so the adage goes. Your neighbour will be liable for the costs incurred.
No drastic action, like removing the tree, was necessary and Crewe failed in his application.
TROUBLE WITH THE NEIGHBOURS
In terms of our private nuisance law, every property owner has a right to unimpeded enjoyment of his land. No case had been made out why the removal of the trees was necessary; 2.
Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. In instances where branches overhang from the trees of a neighbouring property, neighbour A may request that neighbour B remove those branches and if neighbour B refuses, then neighbour A may have the branches removed and claim the cost crres removal from neighbour A.
The problem was that they chose to plant oak trees, which have strong xeres root systems that drain the soil surrounding them. It is accepted that City Parks is the lead department responsible for tree management including streetscapes and avenue planting, cluster planting, historic trees and all other occurrences of trees within the City. Some particular instances are described hereafter. Crewe was not able to prove that the problem with the leaves in his swimming pool, gutters and sewage system was caused by the tree in question, and the court found that the wall separating the two properties could easily be repaired.