Written by Roy Bregman, an admitted attorney with over 51 years’ experience in neighbour law and property disputes.
Last updated: 31 August 2026 · Bregman Moodley Attorneys Inc., Johannesburg
| Key Takeaways
• You are entitled to use and enjoy your property, but only to the extent that you do not unreasonably interfere with your neighbour’s equal right to do the same. • Courts apply an objective reasonableness test. They look at the character of the area, the seriousness of the harm, the time and duration, and whether the problem could easily have been prevented. Personal oversensitivity is not protected. • If a structure crosses your boundary, demolition is the starting point but not a guarantee. A court may order the encroacher to pay you compensation and take transfer of the strip instead, especially where demolition would be wildly out of proportion to your loss. • Litigate last. Recent judgments show that courts penalise neighbours who rush to court without first sending a proper demand, gathering evidence or attempting mediation. |
Neighbour law protects your right to use and enjoy your property without unreasonable interference, while protecting your neighbour’s identical right. It is a body of common law, meaning it comes from centuries of court decisions rather than a single Act of Parliament.
The old Latin maxim is sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. In everyday English, that simply means: use your own property in a way that does not harm your neighbour. Every rule that follows is an application of that one idea.
The law does not ask whether you are annoyed. It asks whether the interference is something a reasonable person, living where you live, should be expected to put up with. That distinction decides most disputes before they ever reach a courtroom.
Conduct becomes unlawful when it goes beyond the give and take that ordinary neighbourly life requires. Courts weigh the competing interests of both owners and ask whether the interference is objectively unreasonable in that particular setting.
There are four main categories, and each carries a different remedy. Identifying the right category at the outset matters, because it determines what evidence you need and what a court can realistically give you.
| Type of dispute | What it looks like | What you must prove | Usual remedy |
| Nuisance (annoyance) | Noise, smells, smoke, dust, glare from security lights, dogs barking through the night | Objectively unreasonable interference, judged against the character of the area | Interdict (a court order to stop). Damages only if you can prove actual financial loss |
| Nuisance (physical damage) | Vibrations cracking your walls, chemical seepage, concentrated stormwater eroding your garden | Unreasonable conduct plus proven damage and a causal link | Interdict plus a damages claim |
| Encroachment | A roof, wall, carport, driveway or tree branches crossing the boundary line | The boundary position (usually a land surveyor’s report) and the extent of the encroachment | Demolition, or compensation plus transfer of the encroached strip |
| Lateral support | Your neighbour excavates for a pool or basement, and your land subsides | Excavation, subsidence and a causal link. No need to prove negligence | Interdict to stop the work, plus damages |
Five judgments give you a reliable picture of how South African courts currently approach these disputes. Read together, they show a judiciary that is firmly protective of ownership but increasingly impatient with neighbours who litigate instead of negotiating.
In Madrasah Taleemuddeen Islamic Institute v Ellaurie (2022), the Supreme Court of Appeal dealt with a resident of Isipingo Beach who obtained a High Court order requiring that the Muslim call to prayer from a neighbouring madrasah not be audible on his property.
The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned that order. It held that the right to undisturbed enjoyment of your property is not unlimited, that a degree of interference must be expected depending on the neighbourhood, and that oversensitivity or personal peculiarities cannot be the standard for reasonableness. The complainant had produced no objective evidence, such as decibel readings, that the sound was unreasonable. His personal aversion to the practice was legally irrelevant.
The practical lesson is blunt. If you complain about noise, you need measurements, logs and independent corroboration, not just your own annoyance.
In Pillay and Another v Moonsamy and Another (2024), a Durban homeowner’s roof was found by a land surveyor to overhang the neighbouring property by 78cm. The roof had been built in 2007 on approved plans, and the current owners argued that they could not be blamed for an encroachment they had inherited.
The court disagreed on both points. The registered owner carries the liabilities attached to the property, including those created by a previous owner. Approved building plans do not cure an encroachment on private land. Because the applicants had complained as soon as they discovered the problem, and neither side argued seriously for compensation, the court ordered removal within 60 days, with costs.
In Chundhur v Rampersad (May 2025), a driveway and carport in a Shallcross sectional title scheme encroached by 46 square metres. The owner demanded demolition, backed by quotations of roughly R137 000 and R94 000 for the removal and rebuilding work.
The court refused. The encroachment was worth about R11 500. Every other unit in the scheme had a similar problem; the neighbour had obtained the body corporate’s permission for the carport, and the applicant had been told about the boundary problem before he bought and did nothing until a row erupted over a bougainvillaea. The judge described the demand for demolition as opportunistic, ordered compensation of R11 500 plus transfer of the strip, and made the applicant bear most of his own costs.
Two judgments, two opposite outcomes, one principle. Courts start from demolition, but proportionality and your own conduct will decide where you land.
In Dique and Another v De Jager and Another (May 2026), a Middelburg couple appealed against the dismissal of their interdict application over dogs that allegedly barked day and night. The High Court never reached the merits. The appellants had applied for a hearing date outside the period the rules allow, and had not applied for condonation, so the appeal was struck off the roll with costs.
It is a painful reminder that in neighbour disputes the procedure is as important as the principle. A strong complaint, badly run, is a lost complaint.
The leading authority on lateral support remains Petropulos and Another v Dias (2020), where the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the duty of lateral support is not confined to land in its natural state but extends to buildings on it, and that liability for breaching that duty is strict.
In plain English, if your neighbour’s excavation causes your land or your house to subside, you do not have to prove that they were careless. You have to prove the excavation, the subsidence and the link between them.
Work through the steps below in order. Skipping straight to litigation is the single most expensive mistake people make, and, as the recent judgments show, courts notice.
South African neighbour law is not a rulebook. It is a balancing exercise, and the balance shifts with the neighbourhood, the facts and the behaviour of both parties.
The recent judgments carry a consistent message. Bring objective evidence, act promptly once you know of the problem, and behave reasonably yourself. Owners who do that are well protected. Owners who rely on personal irritation, sit on their rights or use the courts to punish a neighbour tend to leave with nothing, and with a costs order against them.
If you are living with a problem next door, an early hour of proper legal advice usually costs a fraction of the litigation it prevents.
You must first ask your neighbour to remove the overhanging branches and give them a reasonable time to do so. If they refuse or ignore you, you may cut the branches back to the boundary line yourself, and you are not obliged to return the cuttings. Where roots are causing structural damage, obtain a court order instead of acting alone.
Start by logging the noise with dates, times and durations, and obtain decibel readings if you can. Report a breach of the municipal noise by-laws to your local municipality, which can enforce them at no cost to you. If the disturbance continues, an attorney can apply to court for an interdict, but you will need objective evidence rather than personal annoyance.
Demolition is the starting point, because the law treats an encroachment as an interference with your ownership. However, a court has discretion to order compensation and transfer of the encroached strip instead, particularly where removal costs are grossly out of proportion to your actual loss or where you delayed in complaining.
Your neighbour does, and you do not have to prove that they were negligent. The Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed that the duty of lateral support extends to buildings and that liability is strict. You must still prove the excavation, the subsidence and the causal link, which normally requires an engineer’s report.
In an urban area, a lower-lying owner must accept the natural flow of surface water from a higher property. What you do not have to accept is altered flow. If your neighbour channels, concentrates or diverts the water so that it discharges onto you with greater force, that is unlawful, and you can interdict it and claim your damages.
| FREE DOWNLOAD: The Neighbour Dispute Checklist
Before you spend a cent on litigation, work through our free 2-page checklist. It covers the evidence to gather, the by-laws to check, the wording of your letter of demand and the deadlines you cannot afford to miss. |
Neighbour disputes rarely improve on their own, and they become considerably more expensive once positions harden. Whether you are a homeowner living with a noise problem, a body corporate facing a boundary dispute, or a business dealing with a complaint from an adjoining property, we can tell you quickly and honestly where you stand.
Bregman Moodley Attorneys Inc. has been resolving property and neighbour disputes for Johannesburg clients since 1974. Most matters are settled long before a court date. Contact us today for a practical assessment of your position and your options.
| Telephone: +27 (0)11 646 0335
Email: roy@bmalaw.co.za Website: www.bregmans.co.za Suite 316, Killarney Mall, Riviera Road, Killarney, Johannesburg |
Bee at Ease! Taking the Sting Out of Legal Problems Since 1974.
This article provides general information on South African law and is not legal advice. Every neighbour dispute turns on its own facts. Please consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.