- Residents repeatedly obstructed the Venters’ driveway, infringing on their servitude rights.
- Court confirms effective use of right of way while emphasising fairness, ubuntu, and responsible neighbour conduct.
- Parties ordered to pay their own costs, except for the amendment application, reflecting procedural and equitable considerations.
A long-standing parking dispute between neighbours in Higgovale, Cape Town, ended with a court order after residents repeatedly blocked access to the Venters’ garage. The applicants, Johannes Jacobus Venter and Kari Venter, hold a registered servitude right of way over the neighbouring driveway.
The respondents, Marco Raymonde Helfer, Gavin Brian Robertson, Georg Martin Haas, Keegan James Nicol, and Audrey McNeal Nicol, parked in ways that unreasonably blocked this access. Acting Judge D Cooke highlighted, “Neighbours are not merely competing property owners. A reasonable neighbour seeks mutually beneficial solutions and cares for the needs of fellow residents.”
The Venters’ right to access their property comes from a servitude registered in 1966 and amended in 1987. Judge Cooke explained, “The owner of the dominant tenement is entitled to effective use of the servitude, but such use must impose the lightest possible burden on the servient property.”
While the respondents were not barred from parking completely, their repeated obstruction of the Venters’ reasonable access justified an interdict. “CCTV stills showed that this conduct persisted between the first hearing and the resumed hearing,” Judge Cooke said.
The court granted amended relief to prevent obstruction instead of banning parking altogether. Judge Cooke noted, “The effective use principle means the Venters should be able to drive a vehicle in and out of their garage in one motion, without making multiple turns.”
The judge also rejected the idea that the Venters could rely only on an alternative entrance, confirming, “The Venters have a right to access their property and can use any access point they prefer.”
Procedural issues and amendment application
The case faced complications due to a late amendment application filed by the Venters during the resumed hearing. Judge Cooke criticised the timing, stating, “The late application caused the hearing to be paused until after lunch to allow the residents to file an opposing affidavit. The residents faced severe time pressure, and the hearing ended up taking the entire day.” As a result, the court ordered the Venters to pay for the amendment application based on the attorney and client scale.
Judge Cooke consistently framed the dispute within constitutional and community values. “The Constitution requires that neighbours seek solutions not through individual competition, but through a common desire to promote the mutual enjoyment of rights by all,” the judge stated.
The court stressed that neither the Venters nor the residents acted in good faith at first. “The Venters aimed to deprive the residents of their right to park on the driveway, while the residents sought to limit the Venters’ right of way,” Judge Cooke observed.
The judgment emphasised the principle of ubuntu, explaining, “Neighbours must act reasonably and with consideration for one another. Ubuntu is not just a moral guideline; it informs the law in resolving disputes like this.”
Non-joinder and the body corporate
The respondents claimed that the body corporate should have been included in the proceedings. Judge Cooke rejected this, finding, “The residents are closely identified with the body corporate to be treated as the same party.” The judge confirmed that the order could be enforced without harming the body corporate and noted that adequate notice had been given.
While granting the interdict to prevent obstruction, Judge Cooke encouraged practical cooperation. “It would be better if the parties agreed on where the residents may park their vehicles and painted lines marking the approved parking spots,” the judge said. The court noted that a similar agreement had been made in 2004 with the Venters’ predecessor.
Costs and accountability
The court ordered that the parties pay their own costs, except for the amendment application. Judge Cooke explained, “The parties shall pay their own costs, except that the applicants shall cover the costs of the amendment application dated 28 October 2025, including opposition costs, on the attorney and client scale.”
Judge Cooke concluded, “A reasonable neighbour seeks mutually beneficial solutions and cares for the needs of fellow residents.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
