Arise General Construction CC Reg CK2001/031812/23 v South African National Parks (79889/20165) [2016] ZAGPPHC 697 (12 August 2016)

Arise General Construction CC Reg CK2001/031812/23 v South African National Parks (79889/20165) [2016] ZAGPPHC 697 (12 August 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to make a sufficient case for relief under the mandament van spolie. The applicant's right to possession of the site was lawfully terminated due to its failure to comply with contractual obligations regarding practical completion of the works. The respondent followed due process by issuing notices of default and granting indulgences before lawfully cancelling the contract and instructing the applicant to vacate the site. The applicant was not unlawfully dispossessed, and the mandament van spolie was not applicable. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 697
Parties
Applicant: Arise General Construction CC Reg CK2001/031812/23; Respondent: South African National Parks
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Case Number
79889/20165
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Appeal Against Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on party and party scale.
Judges
Raulinga
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Building Contract, Possession, Termination of Contract
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Building Contract Possession Termination of Contract

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arise General Construction CC Reg CK2001/031812/23

Applicant

South African National Parks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Appeal Against Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unlawfully dispossessed of the building site and entitled to restoration under the mandament van spolie.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the building contract and eviction from the site was lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with its contractual obligations regarding practical completion of the works.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make a sufficient case for relief under the mandament van spolie. The applicant's right to possession of the site was lawfully terminated due to its failure to comply with contractual obligations regarding practical completion of the works. The respondent followed due process by issuing notices of default and granting indulgences before lawfully cancelling the contract and instructing the applicant to vacate the site. The applicant was not unlawfully dispossessed, and the mandament van spolie was not applicable. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on party and party scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on party and party scale.