Bisschoff & Others v Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (815/2016) [2021] ZASCA 81; 2021 (5) SA 54 (SCA) (15 June 2021)

Bisschoff & Others v Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (815/2016) [2021] ZASCA 81; 2021 (5) SA 54 (SCA) (15 June 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the letters sent by the appellants, which cancelled the lease agreements and instructed the respondent not to trespass, did not constitute unlawful deprivation of possession. The threat to approach the court for relief in the event of trespass was a lawful exercise of contractual rights and did not amount to self-help or spoliation. The respondent was not physically dispossessed, and the mere use of strong language in correspondence does not satisfy the requirements for a spoliation order. The high court erred in finding that the letters amounted to dispossession and in granting the spoliation order. Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and the...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 81
Parties
Appellant: Abraham Paulus Bisschoff; Appellant: Abraham Paulus Bisschoff (in his capacity as representative of the Trustees of the Paul Bisschoff Trust); Appellant: Rietvlug Landgoed (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: David Eduard Bisschoff; Appellant: David Eduard Bisschoff (Trustees of the David Bisschoff Trust); Respondent: Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2021
Case Number
815/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng
Outcome
Appeal upheld; spoliation order set aside; application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Wallis, Dambuza, Schippers, Dlodlo, Mabindla-Boqwana
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Unlawful Deprivation of Possession, Lease Cancellation, Spoliation Order, Possessory Remedy
Land and Property Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Unlawful Deprivation of Possession Lease Cancellation Spoliation Order Possessory Remedy

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraham Paulus Bisschoff

Appellant

Abraham Paulus Bisschoff (in his capacity as representative of the Trustees of the Paul Bisschoff Trust)

Appellant

Rietvlug Landgoed (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

David Eduard Bisschoff

Appellant

David Eduard Bisschoff (Trustees of the David Bisschoff Trust)

Appellant

Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letters sent by the appellants constituted unlawful deprivation of possession of the land.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to a spoliation order based solely on the content of the letters.
  3. 3 Whether the threat to approach the court for relief amounts to self-help or unlawful dispossession.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the letters sent by the appellants, which cancelled the lease agreements and instructed the respondent not to trespass, did not constitute unlawful deprivation of possession. The threat to approach the court for relief in the event of trespass was a lawful exercise of contractual rights and did not amount to self-help or spoliation. The respondent was not physically dispossessed, and the mere use of strong language in correspondence does not satisfy the requirements for a spoliation order. The high court erred in finding that the letters amounted to dispossession and in granting the spoliation order. Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; spoliation order set aside; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs.'