IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION, THEMBALETHU)
Case number: 380/2026
In the matter between:
SILVER RIVER ESTATE (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
TIMOTHY DUKE JACKSON First respondent
WILLEM DAMONS Second respondent
MONICA DIEDERICKS Third respondent
Coram: Van Zyl, J
Heard on: 31 July 2026
Judgment: : 19 August 2026
Summary: Application for final interdict – general principles – respondents
operating unauthorised wood harvesting on applicant’s immovable property –
interdict granted
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
1. The applicant’s non-compliance with the forms and service prescribed by
the Uniform Rules of Court is condoned, and the application is heard as
one of urgency under Rule 6(12).
2. The first and third respondents are interdicted and restrained from
crossing the internal gate (the Forest Gate) on the applicant’s immovable
property known as Woo difield Farm, Seven Passes Road, Saasveld,
George (“the property”), and accessing the applicant’s commercial
forestry and timber-harvesting zones.
3. The first and third respondents are interdicted and restrained from
conducting any unauthorized wood harvesting, tree felling, chopping,
cutting, removing, or any other timber extraction operations on the
property, and from selling or distributing wood collected from the property.
4. In the event of the respondents failing to comply with the provisions of
paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the Sheriff of this court, or his deputy, with the
assistance of the South African Police Service, are authorized and
directed to remove the respondents from the forest area behind the Forest
Gate.
5. The first and third respondents, jointly and severally , the one paying, the
other to be absolved, shall pay the applicant’s costs, including counsel’s
fees taxed on Scale A.
JUDGMENT
VAN ZYL, J:
Introduction
1. The applicant does not want the respondents 1 to go into the woods. It seeks
1 The second respondent has passed away since the instituti on of the application. The matter
proceeds against the first and third respondents.
a final interdict preventing them from harvesting wood 2 on the applicant’s
farm, in particular in its commercial forestry a reas, whether by themselves or
through other persons or entities.
2. The application was brought as one of urgency. Given the nature of the relief
sought and the risks involved in allowing the present state of affairs to
continue, I was of the view that the matter warranted a hearing on an urgent
basis. The merits of the matter were in any event fully argued.
3. It is trite that the requirements for the grant of final interdictory relief are a
clear right, an injury actually committed or reasonably appr ehended, and the
absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy.3
The relevant facts
4. The applicant owns immovable property known as Woodifield Farm, situated
on the Seven Passes Road, Saasveld, George. The applicant’s primary
source of income and commercial livelihood is derived from the lawful
harvesting, processing, and selling of wood from the property.
5. During May 2026 it came to the applicant’s chief operating officer’s attention
that the respondents had set up a “rogue” operation on the p roperty, within
nits commercial timber -harvesting zone. The respondents were seen using
tools, including chainsaws, in the applicant’s commercial forestry areas, past
the internal gate on the farm (the gate is known to the parties as the “Forest
Gate”), to chop down the applicant’s trees and process the timber. The
activities are ongoing. 4 The applicant says that the respondents’ operations
on the property are exposing the applicant to financial harm as well as to
statutory and criminal liability, because the respondents are operating without
the required authorisations under, to name but two, the Occupational Health
and Safety Act 85 of 1993, and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries
2 Referred to as “braai” wood in the affidavits.
3 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 at 227.
3 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 at 227.
4 Photographs of the respondents in action are on record.
and Diseases Act 130 of 1993.
6. Various demands addressed to the respondents over the ensuing period,
requesting them to cease their activities, went unheeded. This was because,
according to the respondents, they had at all times been duly authorised to
continue with their operations on the farm.
7. The applicant’s chief o perating officer (“COO”) and the first respondent are
related, but it is clear from the papers that there is no love lost between them.
The reasons for the long-running family rift are not relevant for present
purposes. There are wide -ranging allegations to and fro on the papers, but
the dispute really turns on whether the respondents have any authority to
harvest wood on the applicant's property.
8. This issue had previously been the subject of an application instituted by the
applicant against the respon dents in the magistrate’s court. Pursuant to that
application, t he answer to whether the respondents have the authority to
harvest wood on the property is to be found in a fairly recent judgment of the
Western Cape Division of this court given on appeal5 against the magistrate’s
judgment. The court confirmed, on appeal, that the applicant was the owner
of the property. The shareholders in the applicant are five trusts representing
the interests of the five children (including the applicant’s COO and the f irst
respondent), and their families, of the previous owner of the property.6
9. The court found, further, that a case had been made out against the
respondents in relation to their illegal harvesting of wood on the applicant’s
property.7 The applicant ha d a definitive right – a clear right - worthy of
protection, and the magistrate had correctly found that the respondents (who
included the first respondent in the present matter ) lacked the requisite
authority to harvest trees and wood. 8 The illegal activities interfered with the
5 Silver River Estate (Pty) Ltd v Timothy Duke Jackson and 3 others (case number
5 Silver River Estate (Pty) Ltd v Timothy Duke Jackson and 3 others (case number
A106/2023), delivered on 27 March 2025, coram Le Grange, J et Nziweni, J.
6 At para 3 of the judgment.
7 At para 14.
8 At para 17.
applicant’s rights as owner.
10. The court found, however, that the applicant had framed its case, as well as
the resolution relied upon for the institution of the application, so as to limit
the relief sought to a specific portion of the applicant’s property known as the
Cowboy Block. The interdict granted in that matter was therefore confined to
the respondents’ activities on the Cowboy Block.
11. The present matter relates to the rest of the applicant’s plantations, that is,
excluding the Cowboy Block. T he respondents argue that the first
respondent is a director and shareholder of the applicant, and that that is the
source of the respondents’ authority in relation to the property . They are
incorrect in this respect. As confirmed in th e Western Cape Division’s
judgment on appeal (and explained in the applicant’s papers in the present
matter), the first respondent is one of the beneficiaries of the trusts that are
the shareholders. The applicant’s directorships are indicated in the o fficial
records of the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, and it is
clear that the first respondent misrepresents his relationship vis-à-vis the
applicant and its enterprise.
12. There are disputes between the parties about the manner in which the first
respondent was removed as director, but they are not relevant to these
proceedings, and the first respondent has in any event not exercised any of
his rights under the Companies Act 71 of 2008. The first respondent’s status
within the family estat e planning setup accordingly grants him no right to
conduct a business from the applicant’s property. I am of the view that the
respondents’ contentions, which strenuously argues a contrary position, does
not raise a genuine dispute of fact in relation to this crucial question.9
13. On the papers the respondents do not show that they have a ny right to
harvest wood on the property, such as a contract with the applicant, or a
harvest wood on the property, such as a contract with the applicant, or a
resolution taken by the applicant’s directors granting them such right. The
9 With reference to Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623
(A) at 634G-635C.
personal squabbles amongst the representatives of the respective
shareholders do not override the applicant’s rights to protection against the
respondents’ unlawful actions. The applicant has a clear right to protect its
primary income streams, preserve its trading stock, maintain the undisturbed
use and enjoyment of its property, and prevent unauthorised persons such as
the respondents from crossing boundary markers such as the Forest Gate to
operate an illegal business on the property.
14. As indicated, the interdict granted previously was found to be limited to only a
part of the applicant's property. This appears to have caused the respondents
to move their operations to other parts of the property. The operations are
quite openly ongoing, and the applicant accordingly has a well -grounded
apprehension of irreparable harm. T his necessitated the launch of the
present application to broaden the scope of the interdict to the whole of the
applicants property. The respondents have refused to cease their ongoing
violation of the applicant’s property rights, despite the applicant’s demands
that they do so. In these circumstances, the applicant had not alternative but
to seek interdictory relief against them.
Conclusion and costs
15. In oral argument the respondents emphasised that the matter entails a family
dispute, and that the court should therefore be loath to intervene. This
amounts to a plea ad misericordiam rather than a genuine dispute of the
applicant’s claims. I conclude that the relief sought should be granted against
the first and third respondents.
16. The respondents’ will retain access to the farm from its outer boundary up to
the Forest Gate, and they may remain on the non-forested side of that gate.
17. The applicant sought attorney and client costs against the respondents, but I
do not regard such an order to be warranted in these parties’ circumstances.
Costs will follow the event in accordance with the general rule. Counsel’s
Costs will follow the event in accordance with the general rule. Counsel’s
fees will be taxed on Scale A , as contemplated in Rule 67A , read with Rulle
69.10
Order
18. In the premises it is ordered as follows:
1. The applicant’s non -compliance with the forms and service
prescribed by the Uniform Rules of Court is condoned, and the
application is heard as one of urgency under Rule 6(12).
2. The first and third respondents are interdicted and restrained from
crossing the internal gate (the Forest Gate) on the applicant’s
immovable property known as Woodifield Farm, Seven Passes Road,
Saasveld, George (“the property”), and entering the applicant’s
commercial forestry and timber-harvesting zones.
3. The first and third respondents are interdicted and restrained from
conducting any unauthorized wood harvesting, tree felling,
chopping, cutting, removing, or any other timber extraction
operations on the property, and from selling or distributing wood
collected from the property.
4. In the event of the respondents failing to comply with the provisions
of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the Sheriff of this court, or his deputy,
with the assistance of the South African Police Service, are
authorized and directed to remove the respondents from the forest
area behind the Forest Gate.
5. The first and third respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying,
the other to be absolved, shall pay the applicant’s costs, including
counsel’s fees taxed on Scale A.
10 Counsel, in this instance, includes attorneys with the right of appearance in the High Court.
P. S. VAN ZYL
Judge of the High Court
Appearances:
For the applicant: Mr E. Brand
Instructed by: Brand & Van der Bergh
Attorneys
For the first and third respondents: In person