Sunday 12 November 2023

Papalardo v Hau 2010 (2) SA 451 (SCA)

Papalardo v Hau 2010 (2) SA 451 (SCA)

Issue: Whether a lower-lying landowner is obliged to accept rainwater flowing onto his property from a higher-lying neighbor without taking any steps to mitigate the flow of water.

Facts:

Papalardo owned a lower-lying property, and Hau owned a higher-lying property. Hau developed his property in a way that caused rainwater to flow onto Papalardo's property more quickly and in greater quantities than it would have done if Hau's property had remained in its natural state.

Papalardo brought an action against Hau for an interdict to prevent Hau from allowing rainwater to flow onto his property in such a way that it caused damage. Hau argued that Papalardo was obliged to accept the rainwater flowing onto his property, even though it was causing damage.

Key Facts:

  • Papalardo owned a lower-lying property, and Hau owned a higher-lying property.
  • Hau developed his property in a way that caused rainwater to flow onto Papalardo's property more quickly and in greater quantities than it would have done if Hau's property had remained in its natural state.
  • Papalardo brought an action against Hau for an interdict to prevent Hau from allowing rainwater to flow onto his property in such a way that it caused damage.
  • Hau argued that Papalardo was obliged to accept the rainwater flowing onto his property, even though it was causing damage.

Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Papalardo was not obliged to accept the rainwater flowing onto his property from Hau's property if it was causing damage. The SCA reasoned that landowners have a right to be protected from unreasonable interference with their property, and that this right includes the right to be protected from excessive rainwater flowing onto their property from neighboring properties.

The SCA also held that Hau was obliged to take reasonable steps to mitigate the flow of rainwater from his property onto Papalardo's property. The SCA reasoned that it is not fair to expect lower-lying landowners to bear the burden of all of the damage caused by rainwater flowing from higher-lying properties.

No comments:

Post a Comment