IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 133295 /2024
In the matter between:
JAN SMALL Applicant
And
THE CENTURION COUNTRY CLUB (PTY) LTD First Respondent
(THE CENTURION RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, SPORTS
AND SOCIAL CLUB)
THE CENTURION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
(4) Date: 29 May 2025
Signature: _
2
NYATHI J
[1] This is an urgent application to interdict and restrain the first respondent from
reverting the 12th hole of the Centurion Golf Course to a par 5 instead of a par 4
and to have this relief operating as an interim interdict with immediate effect
pending the determination of the final relief to be heard under part B hereof
subsequently.
[2] The a pplication is launched urgently premised on the need to protect the safety
of life and property of the applicant as well as adjacent 12th fairway homeowners .
[3] The dispute pertains to whether the playing conditions of the 12th hole, par 5,
create unreasonable dangerous risk to life and property to adjacent fairway
homeowners, especially the applicant , from stray shots hit from the tee box which
have a landing zone on or near applicant's house or other houses in the vicinity.
[4] The first respondent oppose this application and its urgency submitting that the
factual issue relevant to this matter is whether there is an imminent danger to
the applicant being struck by st ray golf balls should the 12th hole not be reverted
back to a par 4.
[5] The first fespondent submits that there is no such imminent risk because over
the close to 28 years that the 12th hole of this course has been played as a par
5, there was only 1 incident on which a person was struck by a stray golf ball,
which was to the left of the 12th hole fairway, whilst the applicant's property is
situated on the right. There is no basis to claim that there is an immin ent risk that
the applicant would be struck by stray golf balls. Further, similar to any risk
associated with properties situated immediately next to a golf course, the current
statistics show that there is a low percentage of balls which currently land on the
applicant’s property. On average around 0.4 balls a day, which is very
reasonable.
3
[6] The first respondent thus coun ters the application as follows:
6.1 On urgency, the first respondent submits that there is no
imminent risk of harm and thus no basis for urgency whatsoever.
6.2 On the relief sought by the applicant, the first respondent
submits that the applicant himself accepts that the 12th hole
should not be played as a par 4. Thus, the applicant’s own
submissions militate against the relief he seeks in the urgent
application.
[7] In response to the launch of the application in the last quarter of 2024 , the first
respondent gave the applicant a formal undertaking from 25 November 2024 to
31 January 2025 in which the contentious 12th hole would be played as a Par 4
layout pending negotiations between the parties.1
[8] The effect of the undertaking , it became common cause between the parties, is
that the applicant and his neighbour Suren’s properties were spared the stray
shots because the houses further down the fairway became the landing zone of
these stray shots.2
[9] The respondent has conceded that the 12th hole was conceptual ly flawed in
design.3
1 Confirmatory affidavit of Mr Pritchard , attorney for the first respondent at para 4.
2 Applicant’s replying affidavit para 5.2.
3 Annexure “JS 1” – a transcript of a meeting held on 2 February 2024, page 25 line 10 – referred to in
replying affidavit para 5.6.
4
[10] The applicant has annexed volumes of photographic evidence to his founding
affidavit (Annexures FA3 to 20) including physical injuries sustained ( Annexure
8). The risk of bodily injury has thus far been realised in this instance.
[11] The requirements for an interim interdict are trite by now the applicant must :
11.1 establish a prima facie right even if it is open to some doubt.4
11.2 show a well -grounded (or reasonable) apprehension of
irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted and the
ultimate relief is eventually granted.
11.3 show that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an
interim relief. And,
11.4 there is no other al ternative remedy available to him.
[12] It is the applicant's contention that he ( and his family) confine themselves to his
house out of fear of being hit by golf balls when going outside.5
[13] Mr Greyling referred to the Supreme Court of Appeal (‘SCA’) matter of Allaclas
Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Milnerton Golf Club and Others6 where
Counsel at the time, Mr Binns -Ward (as he then was), referre d to Traverso DJP ’s
quotation with approval in her a quo judgment in the matter , of Sheppard AJA in
the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Campbelltown Golf Club Ltd v Winton
1998 NSWSC 2 57. Sheppard AJA was quoted as saying:
4 Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W) at 1189.
5 Replying affidavit para 21.
6 [2007] SA 167 SCA at para [16].
5
“But what they were not bound to accept was a situation such as was suffered by the
respondents in which their property was peppered with golf balls on a daily basis, thus
posing a threat, not only to the respondents’ property but also to their physical saf ety.
The golf course was obliged so to construct the hole as to divert balls hit normally away
from their property. This could be done by resiting the direction of the hole or by
appropriate screens, whether natural or artificial, or a combination of both as indeed has
apparently happened. ”
[14] In Allaclas Investments (supra) , an important consideration that the SCA took
into account in holding that the nuisance caused by the golf balls was
unreasonable , was that although the neighbouring owners had known that their
properties were prone to being struck by golf balls when they had bought
property adjacent to a golf course , the specific hole had been designed so poorly
that it created an unreasonable safety risk for the neighbouring owners.7
[15] From the above considerations, I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a
compelling case for the relief he seeks. Accordingly, the applicant succeeds in
Part A of his application, to wit, the interim interdict . Costs must follow the
outcome as is the norm.
[16] The following order is made:
1. This application is heard as urgent in that the forms, service and time periods
prescribed in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court were dispensed with in
terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
2. The first respondent is interdicted and restrained from reverting and changing
the 12th hole of the Centurion Golf Course to a par 5 instead of a par 4, as it
is currently played.
7 Neethling Potgieter Visser – Law of Delict 7ed at 128 ft 695.
6
3. The relief set out in sub-paragraph 2 above , operates as an interim interdict
with immediate effect pending the determination of the final relief set out in
Part B of the application.
4. The first respondent to bear the costs of this application on a party and party
scale B.
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 20/02/2025
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2025
On behalf of the Applicant : Adv. PJ Greyling
Instructed by: Dreyer & Dreyer Attorneys, Pretoria
On behalf of the Defendants: Adv. R Bekker
Instructed by: Cox Yeats Attorneys, Sandto 2
Delivery : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand -
down is deemed to be 29 May 2025.