Homeowner takes legal action over flying golf balls hazard threatening safety

A HOMEOWNER, living near a golf course in Pretoria, has approached the courts out of concern about miscued golf shots that produced flying golf balls, over the 12th hole, which was a nuisance and posed significant risk to residents and their properties.

The Centurion Golf Course in Pretoria has found itself at the centre of a legal storm with a teed off homeowner. Jan Small, a resident adjacent to the course, who has taken his concerns to the Gauteng High Court, requesting judicial intervention.

In his court application, where the Centurion Country Club and the homeowners’ association are the respondents, he asked that the 12th hole be reverted back to a par four from a par five so as to avert the danger resulting from mistimed golf shots.

Small appeared before the Gauteng High Court, where he sought an urgent interim interdict to prevent the reversal of the hole's designation, highlighting the immediate dangers posed by errant shots.

“This matter is pressing,” he stated, emphasising the need for protection against stray balls that often find their way close to his home, threatening life and property in the process.

The legal battle revolves around whether the reconfiguration of the 12th hole creates an unreasonable hazard for homeowners nearby, particularly Small, who fears for both his family's safety and the integrity of their property.

Historical precedent informed the case, as Small argued that the previous par-five setup had coincided with numerous instances of stray shots landing dangerously close to homes along the fairway.

In defending its position, the Centurion Country Club contested both the need for such an interdict and the urgency of the complaint.

The club’s legal representatives cited a nearly three-decade history of the hole being played as a par five, with only one reported incident of a person being struck by a stray ball, which occurred outside the applicant's property line.

“The current statistics indicate that an average of only 0.4 balls a day land on the applicant’s property, which is a very reasonable figure considering the location,” stated the club’s counsel, addressing Judge Jabulani Nyathi.

In a surprising move amidst the legal proceedings, the country club provided a formal undertaking to maintain the 12th hole as a par-four layout until negotiations between Small and the club could take place.

This compromise aims to alleviate the immediate risks associated with golf balls landing near residences, effectively shifting the landing zone further down the fairway and offering residents a measure of relief.

Nonetheless, Small has countered this by presenting evidence of damage and injuries resulting from stray golf balls, suggesting that the design flaws of the 12th hole continue to pose a persistent threat to residents.

Small expressed his frustrations, stating that the fear of errant shots has forced him and his family to limit their time outdoors, confining themselves within the walls of their home.

In a decisive move, the judge granted Small the interim interdict, thereby placing a temporary hold on the reclassification of the 12th hole to a par five.

The ruling reflects growing concerns as communities grapple with the challenges of living adjacent to recreational spaces while balancing safety and enjoyment.

As the dimensions of this legal dispute unfold, it raises vital questions about the interplay between community safety and recreational interests.

For residents like Small, the stakes could not be higher, as they navigate the complexities of living by the fairway.

This case serves as a reminder of the impacts that sporting facilities can have on their neighbours—and in this instance, the court has intervened on the side of caution.

DAILY NEWS