Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd v Mabena and Others (913/2023) [2023] ZAMPMHC 14 (24 April 2023)

Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd v Mabena and Others (913/2023) [2023] ZAMPMHC 14 (24 April 2023)

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to conduct business at the Plaza without unlawful interference. The respondents' actions, including locking the gates, organizing demonstrations, and continuing picketing, amounted to unlawful conduct that infringed the applicant's and its tenants' rights. The dispute between the respondents and Shoprite remained unresolved, as proceedings were still pending before the CCMA and the dismissed employee had not been reinstated. The applicant demonstrated reasonable apprehension of ongoing harm and incurred substantial financial losses, with no prospect of adequate redress. The respondents' rejection of settlement proposals...

Citation
[2023] ZAMPMHC 14
Parties
Applicant: Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mumsy Mabena; Respondent: Nkosi Mabena Balwaphi V; Respondent: Hlanganani Bomama 22 NPC; Respondent: Kwa-Ndebele Organisation; Respondent: Pofu Traditional Council; Respondent: The Unlawful Protesters at Portion 1 of the Farm Enkeldoorn 215 –JR; Respondent: The Station Commander, Kwamhanga Police Station; Respondent: The Minister of Police
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2023
Case Number
913/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Under Rule 6(12)
Outcome
Application for urgent interdict granted; costs awarded against the first, second, third, and fifth respondents on attorney and client scale.
Judges
MBG Langa
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Trespass, Unlawful Gatherings, Regulation of Gatherings Act, Reasonable Apprehension of Harm, Costs on Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Land and Property Labour Law Urgent Interdict Trespass Unlawful Gatherings Regulation of Gatherings Act Reasonable Apprehension of Harm +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mumsy Mabena

Respondent

Nkosi Mabena Balwaphi V

Respondent

Hlanganani Bomama 22 NPC

Respondent

Kwa-Ndebele Organisation

Respondent

Pofu Traditional Council

Respondent

The Unlawful Protesters at Portion 1 of the Farm Enkeldoorn 215 –JR

Respondent

The Station Commander, Kwamhanga Police Station

Respondent

The Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Under Rule 6(12)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interdictory relief restraining the respondents from interfering with its business operations at the Plaza.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct constituted unlawful interference, trespass, intimidation, and damage to property.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interdict, including reasonable apprehension of harm and lack of substantial redress, were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to conduct business at the Plaza without unlawful interference. The respondents' actions, including locking the gates, organizing demonstrations, and continuing picketing, amounted to unlawful conduct that infringed the applicant's and its tenants' rights. The dispute between the respondents and Shoprite remained unresolved, as proceedings were still pending before the CCMA and the dismissed employee had not been reinstated. The applicant demonstrated reasonable apprehension of ongoing harm and incurred substantial financial losses, with no prospect of adequate redress. The respondents' rejection of settlement proposals...

Court Disposition

Application for urgent interdict granted; costs awarded against the first, second, third, and fifth respondents on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The matter is declared urgent in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  • The first to sixth respondents are interdicted and restrained from interfering with the applicant, its tenants, employees, subcontractors, or assigns in conducting business operations at the Plaza.