Allegations of a nuisance and danger caused by stray golf balls on the 12th hole of the Centurion Golf Course were the subject of judicial scrutiny when a homeowner who lives adjacent to the course complained that the stray balls landed near his home.
Jan Small took the Centurion Country Club and the homeowners association to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, where he asked for an urgent interim interdict against the club from reverting the 12th hole from a par four back to a par five.
Small wanted the interdict to operate with immediate effect, pending the determination of later litigation regarding the subject.
He told the court that the matter is urgent at this stage as he needs to protect himself and others living close to this hole’s safety, life, and property.
The dispute pertains to whether the playing conditions of the 12th hole, par five, create an unreasonable danger to life and property to adjacent fairway homeowners, especially the applicant, from stray shots hit from the tee box which have a landing zone on or near the applicant’s house or other houses in the vicinity.
The country club, in opposing the application, as well as its urgency, denied that the 12th hole posed any danger as a par five hole or that Small and others faced the danger of stray balls hitting them.
According to the country club, over the nearly 28 years that the 12th hole of this course has been played as a par five, there was only one incident in which a person was struck by a stray golf ball. This, it said, happened to the left of the 12th hole fairway, while the applicant’s property is situated on the right.
There is no basis to claim that there is an imminent risk that the applicant would be struck by stray golf balls. Further, similar to any risk associated with properties situated immediately next to a golf course, the current statistics show that there is a low percentage of balls that currently land on the applicant’s property, counsel for the club told Judge Jabulani Nyathi.
It was argued on behalf of the club that, on average, around 0.4 balls a day land on the applicant’s property, which it said is “very reasonable”.
In response to the launch of the application, the club gave the applicant a formal undertaking that the 12th hole would be played as a par-four layout pending negotiations between the parties.
The effect of the undertaking is that the applicant and his neighbours’ properties were spared the stray shots because the houses further down the fairway became the landing zone of these stray shots, it was said.
The club, however, has conceded that the 12th hole was conceptually flawed in design.
Small, meanwhile, provided the court with evidence of property damage and physical injuries caused by stray balls and argued that the flawed design of the 12th hole created an ongoing hazard.
It is the applicant’s contention that he (and his family) confine themselves to their house out of fear of being peppered by golf balls when going outside.
The judge granted an interim interdict restraining the club, for now, from changing the 12th hole to a par five, instead of a par four, as it is currently played.
