Adreach (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (2737/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 220 (9 September 2021)

Adreach (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (2737/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 220 (9 September 2021)

The court found that the applicant was aware of the removal of its advertisements as early as 7 May 2021 but failed to act with the required urgency, only engaging the respondent weeks later. The applicant's reliance on hearsay evidence and the absence of confirmatory affidavits from key informants undermined its case. The court held that the applicant did not establish urgency as required by law. Furthermore, the mandament van spolie remedy was unavailable because the advertisements were no longer in the possession of the respondent and restoration was impossible. The failure to join Provantage (Pty) Ltd, a party with a direct and substantial interest, was fatal to the application. The...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 220
Parties
Applicant: Adreach (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2021
Case Number
2737/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, except for costs occasioned by the postponement, which are to be borne by the respondent.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Urgency, Non Joinder, Impossibility of Performance, Municipal Advertising Rights
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Mandament Van Spolie Urgency Non Joinder Impossibility of Performance Municipal Advertising Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adreach (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the street pole advertisements and frames.
  3. 3 Whether restoration of possession is possible given the alleged involvement of third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was aware of the removal of its advertisements as early as 7 May 2021 but failed to act with the required urgency, only engaging the respondent weeks later. The applicant's reliance on hearsay evidence and the absence of confirmatory affidavits from key informants undermined its case. The court held that the applicant did not establish urgency as required by law. Furthermore, the mandament van spolie remedy was unavailable because the advertisements were no longer in the possession of the respondent and restoration was impossible. The failure to join Provantage (Pty) Ltd, a party with a direct and substantial interest, was fatal to the application. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, except for costs occasioned by the postponement, which are to be borne by the respondent.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement.