Reportable: NO
Circulate to Judges: NO
Circu late to Magistrates: NO
Circulate to Regional Magist rates: NO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
In the matter between:
BEEFMASTER(PTY)LTD
and
J VIVIERS
PJ VIVIERS
Coram: WESSELS AJ
Date of hearing
Date of Judgment
CASE NUMBER:6232 /24
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
:8 September 2025
:9 February 2026
2
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives via email. The date and time for hand-down of the
judgment is deemed to be 15h00 on 9 February 2026
Summary: Interdict - Biosecu rity - Movement of I ivestock - Access
road across neighbour ing farm
The applicant, a feed lot operator, sought confirmation or an interim interdict
regulat ing the movement of catt le and public access across its farm via an
access road historically used by the respondents to reach their neighbo uring
farm. Although the respondents had long enjoyed use of the access road and
disputed its stat us, the court found that the appl icant was entitled - and
statutorily ob liged under the Animal Diseases Act 35 of 1984 and subseq uent
Control Measures relating to cloven-hoofod anima ls - to implement and
enforce biosecurity and access-cont rol measures to prevent the spread of foot
and- mouth disease.
Held: that the applicant's mea sures were aimed at regu lation rather than
den ia l of access, were reasonable in light of the serious risks posed by FMD,
and were consistent with national disease-control legislation promulgated
after the interim order. Balancing the app licant 's statutory duties against the
respondents' esta blished access, the rule nisi is confirmed with qualifications
permitting transport of livestock only in compliance with the prescribed
biosecu rity measures. The respondents were interd icted from interference,
intimidation, or property damag e and ordered to pay costs.
ORDER
3
1. The rule nisi granted on the 6th December 2024 is hereby confirmed
in the following terms:
1.1. The respondents, or any staff member of the respondents, or
any person who have access to the farm Klipdrif, District
Christiana, is interdicted from transporting any livestock to and
from the farm Klipdrif, Christiana District, via the access route
over the farm Krommelenboog, Christiana District without
compliance with the applicant's biosecurity and access control
measures applied in terms of the provisions of Control
Measures Relating to the Contro l of Diseases of Cloven Hoof
Animals, promulgated by Notice 6319 published in the
Government Gazette 52868 of 13 June 2025 and the Animal
Diseases Act 35 of 1984.
1.2. The respondents are ordered to ensu re that no member of the
public, associated with the respondents, gains access to the
farm Klipdrif, Christiana District, via the access route over the
farm Krommelenboog, Christiana District, with the purpose of
specu lating and/or buying or selling livestock without
compliance with the applicant's biosecurity and access control
measures applied in terms of the provisions of Control
Measures Relating to the Control of Diseases of Cloven Hoof
Animals, promulgated by Notice 6319 published in the
Government Gazette 52868 of 13 June 2025 and the Animal
Diseases Act 35 of 1984.
1.3. The respondents sha ll ensure that no staff member of the
respondents or any person who associates themselves with the
4
respondents who has access to the fann Klipdrif, Christiana
District, interferes or hinders staff members of the applicant
from conducting formal farming activ ities on the farm
Krommelenboog, District Christia na.
I .4. The respondents shaJl refrain from damaging any property of
the Applicant.
1.5. The respondents shall refrain from intimidating any security
personnel performing access control on the farm
Kromm elenboog.
2. The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly
and seve rally, the one paying the other to be absolved, on Sca le B.
JUDGMENT
Wessels AJ
Introduction
f l] This is the return day ofan interim order in terms of which the applicant
clai med interdictory relief again st the respondents to regulate the movement
of cattle across the app licant's farm.
5
The relevant po11ion of the interim relief ("the interim order') that was
granted, is as follows:
·3 .1 The Respondenls, or any staff member. or any person who have access to the farm
Klipdrif, District Christiana, is interdicted from transporting any livestock to and from the
farm Klipdrif. Christiana District. via the access route over the farm Krommelenboog,
Christiana District.
3.2 The Respondents are ordered to ensure that no member of'the public gain access to the
fann Klipdrif, Christiana District via the access route over the farm Kromellenboog.
Chr istiana Oistricl, with the purpose of specula ting and/or buying or selling of livestock.
3.3 The Respondents shall ensure that no staff mt.:mbcr or any person who has access to
the farm Kl ipdriC Chris tiana District, interfere or hinder staff members of the Applicant to
cond uct formal farming activities on the farm Krommelcnboog, District Christiana.
3.4. The Respomlt:ncs sha ll refrain from damaging any property of Lhc Applicant.
3.5. The Respondents shall refrain from intimidating or acting aggressively towards any
secur iLy personnel performing access control on the farm Krommelenboog. •
Facts
[2] The applicant operates a feed lot known as Bcefmaster Feedlot, which
is s ituated near the town of Christiana on the farm Krommelenboog ('the
applicant's farm') next to the N 12 national road ('N 12'). The applicant's
business model involv es sourcing cattle from various breeders, who then raise
them in feedlots on the applicant's farm until they reach market readiness.
The cattle are sold on both domestic and international markets. The applicant
consistently maintains approximately 50,000 head of cattle on its farm.
6
[3] An access road leading to the respon dents' farm runs across the
applicant's farm ('the access road'). The access road branches off the N 12
and has existed since the early 1900s.
[ 4] The first and seco nd respondents are father and son who conduct
farming activities on a neighbourin g farm known as Klipdrif ('res pondent 's
farm '). The responde nts engage in catt le spec ulation, amo ng other pursuits.
The respo ndents acquire cattle at auctions and directly from other farmers
who bring the cattle onto the respondents ' farm. The respondents also sell
cattle from their farm , with buyers collecting the cattle from the respondents '
farm. The respondents, their customers and visito rs utilise the access road.
(5] The respondents contend that the access road is public , but there is no
conclusive evidence that it is registered as a public road and no servitude is
registered over this road in favour of the respondents. It is common cause
that the respondent s have long enjoyed access to their farm via the access
road. The appl icant improved the access road during the ear ly 1980s, and the
respondent s have been using it ever since.
[6] The access road is not the only access to the respondents ' farm. It is
common cause that the respondents also have access to their farm via the
R506 Schwe izer Reneke Road.
(7] In 20 16, the app licant installed a dis in feet ion bay at the entrance to its
farm as a biosecurit y measure to prevent the spread of communicable bovine
diseases by vehicles entering the app licant's farm. The installation comprises
an access gate and a pit filled with disinfectant, through which all vehicles
entering the applicant 's farm must pass. The access gate is constant ly
monitor ed by the applicant's secu rity gua rd, who enforces access control.
7
[8] The primary purpo se of these biosecurity measures is to ensure that any
pathogens carried by vehicl es tran sportin g cattle to the applicant's fa rm are
eliminated before entry.
[9] According to the applicant , t he insta llation of these biosec urity
measures was carried out with the respo ndents' blessing, who were initiall y
pleased with the impl ementat ion of access control at the entrance to the
app licant' s farm , as they recognised its apparen t benefits.
(1 O] To provide context r egard ing t he s ignifi cance the app licant assigns to
biosec urity on its far m, a brief description of its operational practices is
necess ary. The applicant mitigates infection ris k by refraining from
purchas ing cattle at auctions and purchasing exclusively from approved
farmers in regions designated as foot-and-mouth disease-free by the
Depa1tment of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development.
[11] As an additional measure to prevent the spread of communicab le
bovine diseases, the applicant emplo ys a qualified veterinar ian, who, together
with two full -tim e veter inary technicians, cond ucts cl inical and physical
assessments of each animal before loading it onto trucks. Additi onal ly, the
transportation company the app licant employs must certify that its trucks
have been disinfected before loadin g any cattle . When cattle are brought onto
the app licant's farm, they are isolated for 28 days before being integrated into
the remainder of the herd.
[ 12] Dr Shaun David Morr is (' Dr Morris'), a practising veterinarian whose
affidav it is relied on by the app licant in support of the appl ication , describes
the uncontrolled moveme nt of cattle within South Africa as the primary driver
of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease(' FMD'). He further states that South
8
Africa depends on Botswana for vacc ine, which must be imported and
admin istered by the State Veterinarian. For this reason, Dr Morris finds that
implementing and maint aining biosec urity measures, together wit h
controlling catt le moveme nt, are the only effective means of preventing the
sprea d ofFMD.
[13] Dr Morris further states that the outbreak of FMD on a farm requires
immediate implementation of quarantine measures to prevent the movement
of anima ls in or out of that farm. Accord ing to Dr Morr is, this initial
quarantine period may last up to three weeks whi le awaiting vaccination
admini stered by the S tate Veterinarian. Once the outbreak is contained, the
cattle must be slaughtered at a government-approved abattoir. Subsequently,
sentin el animals are introduced to the farm, and if their performance is
satisfac tory, the farm is declared free of the disease and may resume normal
farming operations. The danger s of FMD to any catt le farming operation are
clear , as an outbreak will halt operatio ns a lmost entirely.
[14] Over time, the relat ionship between the app licant and the respondents,
which the applicant described as once cordial, deteriorated. The respondent
did not accede to the app licant's requests to take part in negotiations to resolve
the impasse between the patties. This acrimony reached its peak during
November 2024.
[I 5] On 21 Novembe r 2024, the app licant's secur ity guard on duty at the
access gate, reque sted a driver's license from a membe r of the publ ic who
intended to gai n access to the respondent's farm through the access road to
purchase cattle from the respondents, a stand ard practice employed by the
applicant. The seco nd respondent confronted the guard , w hich prompted the
9
first respondent to attend the scene and block the entrance to the app licant's
prem ises.
[ 16] In another incident on 26 November 2024, a visitor to the respondents'
farm approac hed the access gate, and the app licant's guard conducted
standard security checks on the visitor's person and veh icle. Later that
afternoon, the appl icant's guard was confronted by the seco nd respondent
about the delay during these security checks.
L 17] Some time after the confrontat ion between the seco nd respondent and
the applicant's guard on the 26th Nove mber 2024, both respo ndents arrived at
the access gate, accompan ied by an unkno wn person. They proceeded to cut
down the anchor pole for the access gate.
[18] Th is incident prompted the urgent bring ing of th is applicat ion, and this
Court granted the interim order on 6 December 2024.
App lication to facts
[ 19] Since an outbreak of FMD in Januar y 2019, the entire count1y has seen
numerous well-documented incidence s of a re-em ergence of FMD.
[20] In terms of s 9( l) of the Animal Diseases Act', the Minister of
Agriculture is authorised, inter al ia, to declare controlled areas for disease
management, prescr ibe movement contro ls, biosecurity measures, pcnnits,
'Animal Di~cascs Act 35 of 1984.
10
and san itation requ irements, and to impose mandatory duties on landowners
and users to prevent the spread of FMD.
[21] A renewed outbrea k of FMD in 2 025 saw the promulgat ion of the
Cont rol Measures Relating to the Control of Diseases of Clove n Hoof
Anima ls2 (' the control measu res'). The contro l meas ures were implemented
after the interim order was granted in Decem ber 2024 .
[22] The control measures principally prescribe methods for disinfecting
veh icles, clothing, equipment, and restrict the movement of anima ls, peop le,
and vehicles. The applicant 's biosecurity protocol appears to compl y with the
requirements set out in the contro l measures.
(23] Any cattle farmer may voluntari ly regulate access to their farm for
security and biosecurity purpose s. Under the control measures, read with the
Anima l Diseases Act, cattle farmers are compelled to regulate access to their
farms in accordance with the procedures set out therein.
[24] Apart from m itigating its own economic losses , the applicant has a
statutory duty to prevent the spread of FMD. Failure to act with due dili gence
may expose the app licant to criminal liabilityJ under the Anima l Diseases Act"
and del ictual claims.
2 Government Notice 6319 publ ished in the Government Gazette 52868 of 13 June 2025. 3 Section 32 of the Animal Diseases Act 35 of 1984.
'1 Ibid , fu I .
11
[25] From the evidence before me, it is clear that the applicant 's
implementation of the biosecurity measures is intended not to restrict but to
regulate access to both the applicant 's and the respondents ' farms.
[261 I should, however, consider the respondents ' established use of the
access road and their reliance on it to reach their farm. For this reason, it
wou ld be unreasonable to place an unqualified restriction on the transport of
animals via the access road to the respondents' farm. The respondents are
subject to the control measures and the Animal Diseases Act to the same
extent as the applicant.
[27] Upon consideration of the factors as set out herein , the application
made out a case for the confirmation of the interim order. In confirming the
interim order, I have taken into account that the control measures were not in
operation at the date of the interim order , which led me to recognise it in the
final order.
Order
[28] Resultantly, the following order is made:
1. The rule nisi granted on the 61h December 2024 is hereby confirmed in the
follow ing terms:
1 .1 . The respondents, or any staff mern ber of the respondents, or
any person who have access to the farm Kl ipdrif, District
Christiana, is interdicted from transport ing any livestock to and
from the farm Klipdrif, Christiana District, via the access route
over the farm Krommelenboog , Christ iana District without
12
compliance with the applicant's biosecurity and access control
measures applied in terms of the provisions of Control
Measures Relatin g to the Control of Diseases of Cloven Hoof
Animals, promulgated by Notice 6319 pub I ished in the
Government Gazette 52868 of 13 June 2025 and the Animal
Diseases Act 35 of 1984.
1.2. The respondents are ordered to ensure that no member of the
public , associated with the respondents, gains access to the
farm Klipdrif, Christiana District, via the access route over the
farm Krommelenboog, Christiana District, with the purpose of
specu lating and/or buying or selling livestock without
compliance with the applicant's biosecurity and access control
measures applied in terms of the provisions of Control
Measures Relating to the Control of Diseases of Cloven Hoof
Animals, promulgated by Notice 6319 published in the
Government Gazette 52868 of 13 June 2025 and the Animal
Diseases Act 35 of 1984.
1.3. The respond ents shall ensure that no staff member of the
respondents or any person who associates themselves with the
respondents who has access to the farm Klipdrif, Christ iana
District, interfer es or hinders staff members of the applicant
from conducting formal farming activities on the farm
Krommelenboog, District Christiana.
1 .4. The respondents shall refrain from damaging any property of
the Applicant.
13
1.5. The respond ents s hall refrain fro m intimid ating any s ecu rity
personnel performin g access cont rol on the farm
Kromm elenboo g.
2. The respondent s are ordered to pay the costs of the appli cation j ointly a nd
severally, the one payin g the other to be absolved, on Scale B.
M WESSELS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
APPEARANCES
Counsel for applicant
Instructed by
Respondents
:Adv AP Berry
:Jae N Coetzer Attorneys
:Hoopstad
:c/o Maree & Maree Attorneys
:Mahikeng
:In person