Brown and Others v Morkel and Others (80731/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1150 (28 October 2016)

Brown and Others v Morkel and Others (80731/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1150 (28 October 2016)

The court found that the applicants were in occupation of the main house and had enjoyed uninterrupted electricity supply as an incident of their possession. The respondents admitted to intentionally causing the interruption of electricity without the applicants' consent. The court held that the requirements for the mandament van spolie were satisfied and that none of the limited defences to spoliation had been established by the respondents. The respondents' reliance on alleged perpetual debt and an agreement did not constitute legal justification for the deprivation. The application was urgent and the applicants were entitled to restoration of possession.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1150
Parties
Applicant: Christine Brown; Applicant: Adrien Mornay Brown; Applicant: Johan Abraham Frederik Booysen; Respondent: Johann Morkel; Respondent: Marichelle Morkel; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited; Respondent: City of Tshwane Municipality Metropolitan
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Case Number
80731/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application granted.
Judges
Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Spoliation, Possession, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Spoliation Possession Urgent Interdict

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Brown

Applicant

Adrien Mornay Brown

Applicant

Johan Abraham Frederik Booysen

Applicant

Johann Morkel

Respondent

Marichelle Morkel

Respondent

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

City of Tshwane Municipality Metropolitan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were in possession of the property and entitled to uninterrupted electricity supply.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents wrongfully deprived the applicants of possession by interrupting the electricity supply.
  3. 3 Whether any valid defence to spoliation was established by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were in occupation of the main house and had enjoyed uninterrupted electricity supply as an incident of their possession. The respondents admitted to intentionally causing the interruption of electricity without the applicants' consent. The court held that the requirements for the mandament van spolie were satisfied and that none of the limited defences to spoliation had been established by the respondents. The respondents' reliance on alleged perpetual debt and an agreement did not constitute legal justification for the deprivation. The application was urgent and the applicants were entitled to restoration of possession.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are ordered to take all steps necessary to restore uninterrupted supply of electricity to the main house occupied by the first and second applicants.
  • The first and second respondents are to pay the costs of the application, jointly and severally, the one to pay the other to be absolved.