{"id":43951,"date":"2025-12-09T10:00:25","date_gmt":"2025-12-09T08:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/?p=43951"},"modified":"2025-12-09T10:03:28","modified_gmt":"2025-12-09T08:03:28","slug":"all-about-property-servitudes-and-parking-disputes-can-your-neighbour-obstruct-garage-access","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-servitudes-and-parking-disputes-can-your-neighbour-obstruct-garage-access\/","title":{"rendered":"All About Property | Servitudes and parking disputes: Can your neighbour obstruct garage access?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a case concerning a parking dispute, a recent ruling from the Western Cape High Court offers important clarity on the contours of how neighbours should exercise their rights in relation to a servitude of right of way \u2013 and why reasonableness and Ubuntu shape the law governing neighbourly disputes.<\/p>\n

The dispute<\/strong><\/p>\n

In substance, Venter v Helfer and Others<\/u><\/a><\/em> concerned a parking dispute between neighbours in the leafy suburb of Higgovale in Cape Town. The Venters (‘the applicants’) have a right of way over a neighbouring driveway. They alleged that the respondents, who own units in the neighbouring sectional title scheme over which the servitude is registered, frequently parked in a way that obstructs their garage access. Accordingly, the applicants sought to interdict and restrain the respondents from parking on the driveway.<\/p>\n

The nature and limits of a servitude of right of way<\/strong><\/p>\n

Under South African law, a servitude of right of way grants the dominant property owner the legal right to use a defined portion of the servient property for access. In accordance with prevailing legal principles, the dominant owner must be able to make \u2018effective use\u2019 of the access and the servitude must impose the least possible burden on the servient property. In the neighbour law context, these principles ensure that the servitude fulfils its purpose by allowing unimpeded entry and exit, while avoiding unnecessary and rigid restrictions on the servient owner\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n

In this case, the purpose of the servitude was to allow the dominant owners to drive into and out of their garage. Specifically, the court accepted that \u2018effective access\u2019 includes the ability to enter and exit the garage safely and in a single, ordinary turning movement.<\/p>\n

When is parking on a servitude unlawful?<\/strong><\/p>\n

While the servitude did not expressly prohibit parking by the servient property\u2019s occupants, doing so becomes unlawful when it unreasonably interferes<\/em> with the dominant owner\u2019s access rights.<\/p>\n

Following a site inspection, the evidence indicated that the parked vehicles frequently obstructed the driveway to the extent that the garage could not be accessed without difficulty. This parking interference went beyond minor inconvenience and undermined the essential purpose of the servitude, i.e. to enable the respondents to access their garage.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the court granted an order prohibiting parking that unreasonably obstructs the dominant owner\u2019s use of the servitude. Importantly, the court refused to prohibit parking entirely as such an order would impose a burden greater than is necessary on the servient property.<\/p>\n

Reasonableness as the guiding test<\/strong><\/p>\n

In reaching this decision, the court relied heavily on the principle of reasonableness, which operates as a substantive legal test in servitude disputes to determine whether conduct is acceptable or constitutes unlawful interference.<\/p>\n

In applying this test, the court assessed the following considerations:<\/p>\n