Van Rensburg v Coetzee 1979 (4) SA 655 (A)

Van Rensburg v Coetzee 1979 (4) SA 655 (A)

Issue: Whether a way of necessity exists over a servient tenement if there is another way of access to the dominant tenement, but that way is inconvenient or more expensive.

Facts:

Van Rensburg was the owner of a farm that was landlocked. The only way to access Van Rensburg's farm was through a neighboring farm, which was owned by Coetzee.

Van Rensburg had been using a road across Coetzee's farm to access his farm for many years. However, Coetzee decided to close the road.

Van Rensburg sued Coetzee for a declaration that a way of necessity existed over Coetzee's farm.

Key Facts:

• Van Rensburg was the owner of a landlocked farm.
• The only way to access Van Rensburg's farm was through a neighboring farm, which was owned by Coetzee.
• Van Rensburg had been using a road across Coetzee's farm to access his farm for many years.
• Coetzee decided to close the road.
• Van Rensburg sued Coetzee for a declaration that a way of necessity existed over Coetzee's farm.

Court's Discussion on the Requirements for a Way of Necessity

The Appellate Division (AD) held that a way of necessity exists if the following requirements are met:

• The dominant tenement must be landlocked.
• There must be no other way to access the dominant tenement.
• The way of necessity must be reasonably necessary for the use and enjoyment of the dominant tenement.

The AD held that the fact that there is another way to access the dominant tenement, but that way is inconvenient or more expensive, does not mean that a way of necessity does not exist.

Application of the Law to the Facts of the Case

The AD applied the law to the facts of the case and found that a way of necessity existed over Coetzee's farm. The AD held that Van Rensburg's farm was landlocked and that there was no other way to access Van Rensburg's farm. The AD also held that the way of necessity was reasonably necessary for the use and enjoyment of Van Rensburg's farm.

Conclusion

The AD's decision in Van Rensburg v Coetzee 1979 (4) SA 655 (A) is a significant case because it clarifies the law relating to ways of necessity. The decision emphasizes that a way of necessity exists if the dominant tenement is landlocked and there is no other way to access the dominant tenement, even if there is another way to access the dominant tenement but that way is inconvenient or more expensive.

The decision also provides guidance to landowners on the circumstances in which a way of necessity may exist over their property. Landowners should be aware that they may be required to grant a way of necessity over their property if the dominant tenement is landlocked and there is no other way to access the dominant tenement.