Close-by Security CC v Hanmah 52 (Pty) Ltd (756/07) [2007] ZANWHC 24 (21 June 2007)

Close-by Security CC v Hanmah 52 (Pty) Ltd (756/07) [2007] ZANWHC 24 (21 June 2007)

The court found that the applicant had established both possession and unlawful dispossession. The applicant placed its employee on the premises to safeguard its installations, demonstrating actual possession. The removal of the employee was effected without the applicant's consent and not through legal process, satisfying the requirements for a mandament van spolie. The respondent's denials were found to be bare and unsupported by evidence, and its version did not challenge the applicant's possession or the unlawfulness of the dispossession. The applicant acted promptly in seeking relief, and the respondent failed to raise a valid defence. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to...

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 24
Parties
Applicant: Close-by Security CC; Respondent: Hanmag 52 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Case Number
756/07
Procedural Posture
Spoliation Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; possession restored to the applicant; costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
Makhafola
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Unlawful Dispossession, Right of Retention, Peaceful and Undisturbed Possession
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Unlawful Dispossession Right of Retention Peaceful and Undisturbed Possession

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Close-by Security CC

Applicant

Hanmag 52 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Spoliation Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unlawfully dispossessed of the property by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a mandament van spolie have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established both possession and unlawful dispossession. The applicant placed its employee on the premises to safeguard its installations, demonstrating actual possession. The removal of the employee was effected without the applicant's consent and not through legal process, satisfying the requirements for a mandament van spolie. The respondent's denials were found to be bare and unsupported by evidence, and its version did not challenge the applicant's possession or the unlawfulness of the dispossession. The applicant acted promptly in seeking relief, and the respondent failed to raise a valid defence. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Application granted; possession restored to the applicant; costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent is to restore possession ante omnia of the premises known as Cashan Terrace, Frederick Avenue, Cashan, Rustenburg, and the townhouses erected on such premises excluding townhouse numbers 7 and 22, to the applicant.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of this application.