Venter and Another v Helfer and Others (2025/127911) [2025] ZAWCHC 523 (12 November 2025)

Case Note

Johannes Jacobus Venter and Kari Venter v Marco Raymonde Helfer and Others, Case No: 2025-127911, [2025] ZAWCHC 103, heard on 10 and 28 October 2025, judgment delivered on 12 November 2025.

Reportability

Although marked as “Not Reportable,” this case presents significant reflections on property law, particularly concerning servitudes and reasonable use. The analysis of neighbourly conduct through the lens of ubuntu provides a contemporary perspective on long-standing principles. As property disputes increasingly arise in tightly determined neighborhoods, the case underscores the importance of balancing individual property rights with communal harmony, making it relevant even if it is not formally reportable.

Cases Cited

• Rosevean Investments 0028 (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others 2025 (3) SA 616 (WCC)
• Penny and Another v Brentwood Gardens Body Corporate 1983 (1) SA 487 (C)
• Port Nolloth Municipality v Xhalisa and Others; Luwalala and Others v Port Nolloth Municipality 1991 (3) SA 98 (C)
• Mannaru and Another v McLennan-Smith and Others 2023 (2) SA 150 (SCA)
• Sunset Ridge Estate Home-Owners Association v Van Deventer and Others 2024 [ZAGPPHC 220] (5 February 2024)
• Hotz v University of Cape Town 2017 (2) SA 485 (SCA)
• Amalgamated Engineering Union v Minister of Labour 1949 (3) SA 637 (A)
• Vlakplaats Estates (Pty) Ltd v Geral 1963 (3) SA 31 (T)
• Man Truck & Bus (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Dusbus Leasing CC & Others 2004 (1) SA 454 (W)

Legislation Cited

• No specific statutory provisions were directly cited within this judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

• No specific rules of court were referenced in this case.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This judgment addresses a parking dispute between neighbours, specifically concerning the interpretation and enforcement of a right of way servitude. The applicants, the Venters, sought an interdict to prevent the respondents, their neighbours, from parking on a shared driveway in a manner obstructing their access. The court evaluates the principles of reasonable use and damages, relating them back to ubuntu — essentially a call for co-operation and understanding in neighbourly relations.

Key Issues

The key legal issues included: 1. Whether the Venters had a clear right in the servitude that was being infringed by the respondents' parking. 2. The extent to which the servitude allowed parking in the driveway and what constituted reasonable access for the Venters. 3. The role of the body corporate in defining and managing access rights associated with the servitude. 4. The consideration of ubuntu in resolving neighbourly disputes.

Held

The court ruled that while the residents were allowed to park on the driveway, they were interdictively restrained from doing so in a manner that obstructed the Venters' access. The Venters were granted an order forbidding unreasonable obstruction, emphasizing a collaborative approach to settling property disputes in line with constitutional values of dignity and community.

THE FACTS

The case stems from a parking dispute in Higgovale, Cape Town, where the applicants, owners of a property benefitting from a servitude right of way, sought to interdict their neighbours from obstructing their access via vehicular parking on that servitude area. Initially, the Venters demanded that all parking on the servitude be prohibited; however, this position evolved during deliberations, reflecting an acknowledgment of the complexities of rights and communal living.

The residents argued that the Venters had not adequately cited the body corporate—responsible for the management of shared property—as a party. Additionally, they contended that the Venters did not possess a clear right to prevent parking altogether due to several assertions regarding the servitude's terms and uses. A significant aspect of the hearings involved an on-site inspection to evaluate the spatial dynamics impacting access and parking.

THE ISSUES

The central legal questions included: 1. Did the Venters have a clear right under the servitude that was infringed upon by the residents' parking? 2. Was there a reasonable apprehension of injury due to the obstruction caused by the parking? 3. Were the Venters entitled to an interdict given the claimed breaches and the responses from the residents? 4. How do principles of ubuntu affect the interpretation of neighbourly relations and shared property rights?

ANALYSIS

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the nature of the servitude and the rights attached to it. The servitude deed indicated a right of way but imposed restrictions on the dominant tenement regarding parking. The residents' opposition highlighted important issues of the body corporate's involvement and obligations, requiring the court to balance competing interests carefully.

A strong emphasis was placed on the principle of civiliter modo, advocating that all use of the servitude should cause minimal disruption to the servient land. The court discussed the role of ubuntu, positing that traditional notions of property rights should include community-mindedness and fairness towards one another as neighbours. This view shifted the focus away from isolated assertions of individual rights towards a more integrated approach to property relations.

The Venters' need for access was deemed legitimate and was matched against the rights of the residents to use the property. The court found that there were instances of improper parking which directly obstructed the Venters' access, constituting an infringement of their rights under the servitude.

REMEDY

The court ultimately granted an interdict to restrain the residents from parking in a manner that obstructed the Venters’ access to their property, though not outright prohibiting parking on the servitude. This balanced solution aimed to ensure the Venters could exercise their rights while acknowledging the residents' interests, endorsing a constructive coexistence.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment reinforced several key legal principles regarding servitudes: 1. The right of access through a servitude must be exercised reasonably and with regard to the rights of others. 2. The principle of ubuntu encourages neighbourly considerations that promote shared concerns over rigid property rights. 3. The court's duty is to ensure minimal disruption to the servient owner while safeguarding the dominant owner's right of use. 4. Interdictory relief will only be granted when the claimant demonstrates clear rights, actual or anticipated injury, and the absence of alternative remedies.

In summation, this case illustrates the complexities inherent in property disputes and redefines neighbourly relations through constitutional values, fostering an environment of mutual respect and consideration.