PVL3703 Unique number: 888278 Due date: 15 May 2021
Assignment 01 Semester 02 Student number: 55612792
Ashleigh Hala
The following discussion regarding the judgment in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn
Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA) will include an explanation as to how the Supreme
Court of Appeal concluded that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful, followed
by a comparison of the decision reached in the above-mentioned case to the
principles laid out by Neethling and Potgieter on how they believe wrongfulness
should be established. This will include a look at the similarities and differences
between the Supreme Court of Appeal and Neethling and Potgieter’s principles in
establishing wrongfulness.
(a) The test for wrongfulness is whether a particular infringement of interests is
unlawful according to the legal convictions of the community1. This test, the boni
mores, is “an objective test based on the criterion of reasonableness”2. This test
involves a weighing-up of the interests of both parties, in terms of the social
consequences of placing liability in similar cases, while at the same time considering
all relevant circumstances and factors in order to decide whether the infringement of
rights was reasonable or not.
When considering all the factors to determine reasonableness, the Supreme Court of
Appeal (SCA) found that the municipality has a restricted budget, as well as other
sociological concerns in the surrounding area in terms of the surrounding informal
settlement and the issues created there regarding flooding. Considering these
concerns, it was decided that holding the municipality liable would place too large a
burden on the Bergrivier municipality and ignore their budgetary priorities, as it would
bring about the fear of limitless liability in similar cases in the future regarding
flooding in informal settlements3.
Furthermore, the SCA found that no evidence was brought forward by Mr Van Ryn
Beck regarding the measure of intensity of rainfall that would constitute a flood and
what type of storm-water drainage system would be required to prevent this type of
rainfall from flooding the property4 and that there was no way to tell that the storms
1
Neethling, J. and Potgieter, JM. 2020. Law of Delict. 8th ed. South Africa: LexisNexis. (39).
2
Neethling, 2020: 40.
3
(Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA) [51] (hereinafter the Bergrivier Municipality
case).
4
The Bergrivier Municipality case [47].
Assignment 01 Semester 02 Student number: 55612792
Ashleigh Hala
The following discussion regarding the judgment in Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn
Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA) will include an explanation as to how the Supreme
Court of Appeal concluded that the Municipality’s conduct was not wrongful, followed
by a comparison of the decision reached in the above-mentioned case to the
principles laid out by Neethling and Potgieter on how they believe wrongfulness
should be established. This will include a look at the similarities and differences
between the Supreme Court of Appeal and Neethling and Potgieter’s principles in
establishing wrongfulness.
(a) The test for wrongfulness is whether a particular infringement of interests is
unlawful according to the legal convictions of the community1. This test, the boni
mores, is “an objective test based on the criterion of reasonableness”2. This test
involves a weighing-up of the interests of both parties, in terms of the social
consequences of placing liability in similar cases, while at the same time considering
all relevant circumstances and factors in order to decide whether the infringement of
rights was reasonable or not.
When considering all the factors to determine reasonableness, the Supreme Court of
Appeal (SCA) found that the municipality has a restricted budget, as well as other
sociological concerns in the surrounding area in terms of the surrounding informal
settlement and the issues created there regarding flooding. Considering these
concerns, it was decided that holding the municipality liable would place too large a
burden on the Bergrivier municipality and ignore their budgetary priorities, as it would
bring about the fear of limitless liability in similar cases in the future regarding
flooding in informal settlements3.
Furthermore, the SCA found that no evidence was brought forward by Mr Van Ryn
Beck regarding the measure of intensity of rainfall that would constitute a flood and
what type of storm-water drainage system would be required to prevent this type of
rainfall from flooding the property4 and that there was no way to tell that the storms
1
Neethling, J. and Potgieter, JM. 2020. Law of Delict. 8th ed. South Africa: LexisNexis. (39).
2
Neethling, 2020: 40.
3
(Bergrivier Municipality v Van Ryn Beck 2019 (4) SA 127 (SCA) [51] (hereinafter the Bergrivier Municipality
case).
4
The Bergrivier Municipality case [47].
