REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
REPORTABL E: N O
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : N O
REVISED: NO
05JUNE2026
DATE
In the matter between:
IZELDA SCHEEPERS
and
ORGANIC CORAL INVESTMENTS 1 (PTY) LTD
YOLANDI NAUDE
PAULUSPETRUSNAUDE
JUDGMENT
FRANCIS-SUBBIAH J:
Case No: 2024-040826
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
[1] This is an opposed application for the removal of a boundary fence on a
farmland. The issue in dispute is whether the boundary fence has been placed at the
correct coordinates as depicted on the registered Surveyor General Plan. The title
deed differs with the physical land boundaries.
[2] The applicant is the registered owner of portion 354 and relies on the surveyor
general plan for the boundary demarcation. She submits that the fence of the second
and third respondents encroaches on her property. The second and the third
respondents are the registered owners of Portion 355 of the Farm Grootvlei 272,
Registration Division JR, Gauteng.
[3] According to the Deed of Transfer Portion 355 should be 5.0176 hectares in
extent. The registration took place on 12 December 2014. It is evident that the
subdivision diagram on Annexure G for Portion 355 and Annexure H for Portion 354
indicate the identical co-ordinates of Beacon B, as 73 883,46.
[4] The second and third respondents explain how it came about that they
purchased the property in August 2014. Together with the first respondent, Director
van Sittert, they drove around the property, and the boundaries were indicated to them.
They accept this as their real agreement.
[5] The deed of transfer indicates that the second and third respondents own
5.0176 hectares, however they realised in 2021 that they received less square metres
than they had agreed upon. They made attempts to discuss the issue with van Sittert,
which he simply ignored. They further submit that a similar problem also arose at
another plot they purchased from him (Plot 248), which transfer deed alleges that they
hold 8.5649 hectares whereas in truth they hold 7 hectares.
[6] The second and third respondents made further attempts to amicably settle the
dispute with the first respondent, but to no avail. Subsequently, the first respondent
fully aware of the existing factual dispute, in 2022, and failing to settle this dispute with
the second and third respondent, sold Portion 354 to the applicant.
[7] The second and third respondents contend that when the applicant purchased
the property, she knew fully well of the existence of a dispute.
[8] Interesting to note is that the offer to purchase records the registered extent of
the property as 5.1926 hectares, whereas the cadastral extent is reflected as 4.916
hectares, resulting in a difference of 0.2766 hectares (2,766 square metres). It was
explained that the registered extent refers to the extent recorded in the title deed and
Deeds Registry, while the cadastral extent refers to the extent reflected on the
approved cadastral survey records. A discrepancy between these extents may arise
from historical survey data, amendments to survey records, or other factors affecting
the description of the property. Cadastral survey is the technical and legal process a
qualified surveyor undertakes to define property lines and establish official land
coordinates .
[9] In response to the second and third respondents' submission that in 2014 they
went with the van Sittert, and the property beacons were identified. It was argued on
behalf of the applicant that van Sittert could not have shown them the beacons as per
the surveyor general plan before their sale in 2014 because the photos of the beacons
were taken only in 2017. And the fence was erected in 2017.
[1 O] The applicant relying on Surveyor General plans submits that the property of
the second and third respondents encroaches on her property. However, she fails to
provide any surveyor affidavit, expert reports, confirmatory affidavit from the surveyor
generals' office nor any beacon verification reports.
[11] The effect of the order that the applicant seeks to enforce is the agreement
between herself and the first respondent which would have the effect of increasing the
extent of her property by approximately .42 hectares and reducing the extent of the
respondents' property by the same size. The second and third respondents were never
parties to the offer to purchase signed between the applicant and first respondent and
never agreed to the moving of the fence without the true boundaries being verified.
[12] The agreement between the first respondent and the second and third
respondents in 2014 (historical occupation of the land), predates the agreement
between the applicant and first respondent by 8 years. The true cadastral boundaries
are not established, the location of the beacons not verified and if any encroachment
exists whether the requested relocation is accurate.
[13] The third respondent, in his answering affidavit submits that he has instructed
a Land Surveyor to examine the SG chart, beacons and claims made by the applicant
and to reconcile with what they have in their possession and to compile a report.
(14) In the absence of such expert evidence, the court may be unable to properly
determine the disputed facts relating to the precise location of the boundary lines. It is
incumbent that a court should proceed with caution when parties disagree on material
facts and the supporting evidence reveals unresolved issues require clarification.
When it is fitting to refer a matter to evidence was considered in Shoprite Holdings
Ltd v Oblowitz and others [2006) 3 ALL SA 491 (C) at 501, Davis J explained the test
as follows:
"On the basis of the Wallach test, it would appear that the critical question in
this regard is: Is there material which could be placed before the Court which
could inform an evaluation of these contentions, the resolution of which is
critical to the determination of the main application?"
[15] Rule 6(5)(g) of the Uniform Rules further provides when it is appropriate to refer
a matter to evidence as follows:
'Where an application cannot properly be decided on affidavit the court may
dismiss the application or make such order as it deems fit with a view to
ensuring a just and expeditious decision. In particular, but without affecting the
generality of the aforegoing, it may direct that oral evidence be heard on
specified issues with a view to resolving any dispute of fact and to that end may
order any deponent to appear personally or grant leave for such deponent or
any other person to be subpoenaed to appear and be examined and cross
examined as a witness or it may refer the matter to trial with appropriate
directions as to pleadings or definition of issues, or otherwise.'
[16] From the above factors considered in the present matter, it points to the fact
that expertise is required for the objective and authoritative assessment for the
conclusive determination of the dispute.
[17) The proceedings were instituted in circumstances were a clear factual dispute
existed over boundary lines. A practical and appropriate mechanism for resolving the
factual dispute would be the appointment of a qualified land surveyor to conduct a
survey of the property and prepare a comprehensive surveyor's report. Applicant's
representative submitted that such an appointment will be appropriate.
[18] Such report should identify and establish the correct boundary lines, explain the
methodology employed in determining those boundaries, and reference the relevant
title deeds, survey records, diagrams, cadastral information, and physical markers
relied upon. Given the technical nature of boundary determination, a qualified land
surveyor possesses the necessary expertise to provide an objective and authoritative
assessment that will assist the parties in resolving the disputed boundary lines.
[19] Only when this is done can the court fulfil its role as the impartial arbiter of the
dispute and ensure justice is properly served. The parties in any event remain at liberty
to approach the court with expert reports for the leading of oral evidence if the dispute
remains unresolved.
[20] As a result, the court orders as follows:
20.1 The parties are ordered to obtain the services of a qualified land surveyor
whose report will confirm the correct boundaries of the abovementioned
portions 354 and 355.
20.2 The applicant and first respondent are ordered to pay the costs of the
land surveyor in equal shares.
20.3 The parties may approach the court on the same papers, as
supplemented to lead oral evidence in the event the dispute remains
unresolved.
20.4 Costs are in the cause.
Judge of the Gauteng High court: Pretoria
Appearances
For applicant:
For 2nd and 3rd respondent:
Instructed by:
Hearing: 26 May 2026
Judgment: 05 June 2026
Attorney S.F Fourie
stephan@sflaw.co.za
Adv Z. F Kriel
adv.z.f.kriel@qmail.com
Nols Nolte Attorneys
nols@nolsnolteattorneys .co .za