Comscience (Pty) Ltd and Others v Stanbury and Another (41186/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 402 (19 June 2014)

Comscience (Pty) Ltd and Others v Stanbury and Another (41186/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 402 (19 June 2014)

The court found that Comscience, through its directors and employees, was in possession of the premises. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that the directors were lawfully removed or that Stanbury was appointed as sole director. By denying access to the premises, the respondents deprived Comscience of possession via its detentors, amounting to spoliation. Nyembe and Lamb, as directors, were also spoliated in their own right. The third and fifth applicants, Booyse and Ross, held the premises only on behalf of Comscience and were not spoliated personally, but restoration of detentio to all natural person applicants was ordered as part of Comscience's possession. The...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 402
Parties
Applicant: Comscience (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Linda Joseph Nyembe; Applicant: Gerhard Booyse; Applicant: Warwick Spencer Lamb; Applicant: Peter Ross; Respondent: John Stanbury; Respondent: Paul Inglesby
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2014
Case Number
41186/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Spoliation Application
Outcome
Application granted. Restoration of possession and access ordered. Costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Possession and Detentio, Company Directors Removal, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Possession and Detentio Company Directors Removal 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comscience (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Linda Joseph Nyembe

Applicant

Gerhard Booyse

Applicant

Warwick Spencer Lamb

Applicant

Peter Ross

Applicant

John Stanbury

Respondent

Paul Inglesby

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Spoliation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants possessed the premises for purposes of spoliatory relief.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents unlawfully deprived the applicants and Comscience of possession or detentio of the premises.
  3. 3 Whether the removal of directors was valid and affected the authority to bring the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Comscience, through its directors and employees, was in possession of the premises. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence that the directors were lawfully removed or that Stanbury was appointed as sole director. By denying access to the premises, the respondents deprived Comscience of possession via its detentors, amounting to spoliation. Nyembe and Lamb, as directors, were also spoliated in their own right. The third and fifth applicants, Booyse and Ross, held the premises only on behalf of Comscience and were not spoliated personally, but restoration of detentio to all natural person applicants was ordered as part of Comscience's possession. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Restoration of possession and access ordered. Costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth applicants must be restored to and forthwith given access to the premises of the first applicant at 14 Kastaiing Nook, Highveld Techno Park, Centurion.
  • The sheriff is authorised and directed to release to the third applicant the things removed and held in secure storage by the sheriff pursuant to paragraph 1 of the order made by Fourie J on 6 June 2014.