Search results
Malherbe v Ceres Municipality: I t had to be determined whether falling leaves and acorns and protruding branches of trees growing alongside streets constituted a nuisance. The law expects a degree of tolerance between neighbours in the exercise of their entitlements of ownership.
- (8)
LIMITATIONS ON OWNERSHIP. Case study: Malherbe v Ceres Municipality (AS IN STUDY GUIDE) Facts: Appellant, Malherbe approached court for an interdict ordering respondent, Ceres Municipality, to prevent acorns & leaves of oak trees growing alongside the streets of Ceres, from falling into his property.
- (4)
Malherbe v Ceres Municipality (1) (1951 (4) SA 510 (A)) deals with nuisance of trees and leaves. Facts. The appellant, Malherbe approached the court for an interdict ordering the respondent, Ceres Municipality, to prevent acorns and leaves of oak trees growing alongside the streets of Ceres, from falling onto his property.
3 days ago · 4 Malherbe could have avoided the damage by taking precautionary measures. 4 Malherbe could have avoided the damage by taking precautionary measures. QUESTION 10 In Malherbe v Ceres Municipality the court held as follows: The appellant cannot complain about falling leaves and acorns from overhanging branches, if he allows such branches to protrude onto his property.
In }{ \i\f1\insrsid7297426 Malherbe v Ceres Municipality, }{\f1\insrsid7297426 1951 (4) SA 500 (A.D) at p 517, it is accepted}{\f1\insrsid7888023 \par }{\f1\insrsid7297426 \'93that the consequences of the usual use of a piece of ground by its owners cannot be regarded as an unlawful interference of his neighbour\rquote s land\'94.\rquote \par \par }{\f1\insrsid4457365 3.\tab }{\f1 ...
In Malherbe v Ceres Municipality 1951 (4) SA 510 A it was confirmed that should a neighbour’s tree branches overhang or the roots spread into your property and the owner refuses to remove same, you may chop them off on the boundary line. Hopefully you will be able to resolve tree-related issues with your neighbour in a courteous way, and ...
a) remove the branches himself and claim the cost of removal from the landowner (Malherbe v Ceres Municipality (1951)) ; or b) approach the court for an interdict compelling the owner to remove the branches, if necessary coupled with a prohibitory interdict forbidding similar encroachments in future.
