Normal game management practices to be resumed

MARLOTH PARK - Last week Dennis Goffinet, chairperson of the Marloth Park Property Owners Association (MPPOA), welcomed the recent decision by the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court, in which an application by another property owner group in Marloth Park, namely Marloth Park Property Owners Rate Payers Association (MPRPA), was dismissed with costs.

This now allows for normal game control practices according to the need and current overpopulation of Marloth Park, to continue.

However, rumours that the culling was planned for early this week have not yet been confirmed by the Nkomazi Local Municipality (NLM). It may now yet again act as the legal owners of the game roaming the holiday town as well as the adjacent game reserve.

MPPOA is the oldest property owners’ association in Marloth. It has joined hands with other Marloth Park member organisations to create a so-called associated forum. Organisations include the Marlothii Conservancy, honorary rangers, Marloth Wildlife Fund, and Wild and Free.

In its application, the MPRA sought three orders to be made by the High Court, namely: (1) that the game in Marloth Park belong to the registered property owners of Marloth Park, (2) that all rights associated with such game are vested in the registered property owners, and (3) that culling of surplus game in Marloth Park via the use of a firearm is unlawful.

Goffinet, with the guidance of an appointed legal adviser, studied the court outcome. He said the application was dismissed by the judge on technical grounds and the questions raised in the three prayers were therefore not answered by the court in her judgment. Legal interpretation and assessment of the judgement was sought in order to better understand the reasons for dismissing the application by the MPRA and the impact of the judgement on

Marloth Park.

With reference to the second prayer sought by the MPRA, namely that the court declare that all rights in the ownership of the animals vest in the registered property owners of Marloth Park, he was informed by an appointed legal adviser that the granting of the second prayer would inter alia have meant, had it been granted, that the property owners would inter alia have become entitled to claim a right to control or co-control the animals and to alienate them. Presently, owners of property in Marloth have a constitutional right only to enjoy the controlled presence of the animals.

Goffinet said when the application was served on NLM by the MPRA in 2020, the municipality, which has often in the past worked with MPPOA, brought the existence of the application to the attention of MPPOA. It was then decided to assist the municipality in opposing the application by providing it with an affidavit stating that MPPOA and the forum members were not in favour of the orders sought. This affidavit formed part of the papers before the court.

In dismissing the application, the court alluded to various legal principles and criteria to be considered when dealing with an application such as the present one, including, among others, that MPRA had to allege and prove that it had the right to represent all property owners. The judge was critical of the fact that other property owner groups like MPPOA were not joined as respondents, especially given the fact that the orders sought were final in effect.