Dick v Dick and Others (241/2007) [2008] ZASCA 49 (31 March 2008)

Dick v Dick and Others (241/2007) [2008] ZASCA 49 (31 March 2008)

The court assumed, without deciding, that the appellant had established a clear right to occupy the properties. However, the appellant failed to prove that an injury had been committed or was reasonably apprehended. The evidence showed no unlawful interference with his occupation of the properties, and any alleged interference was disputed on the papers. The appellant's complaints were substantially watered down in reply, and the disputes of fact could not be resolved without oral evidence. Relief in respect of the Erinvale property was conceded as unwarranted. Accordingly, the requirements for a final interdict were not met, and the appeal had to fail.

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 49
Parties
Appellant: Graham Dick; Respondent: Angela Christine Dick; Respondent: Transman (Pty) Limited; Respondent: 15 Grandhaven (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: 262 Tawny Close (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: 6 Peregrine Close (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Clan Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2008
Case Number
241/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Final Interdict
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel where applicable.
Judges
MPATI, MTHIYANE, VAN HEERDEN, PONNAN, KGOMO
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Dispute of Fact, Possession, Company Property, Spousal Rights
Civil Procedure Land and Property Final Interdict Dispute of Fact Possession Company Property Spousal Rights

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

Parties

Graham Dick

Appellant

Angela Christine Dick

Respondent

Transman (Pty) Limited

Respondent

15 Grandhaven (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

262 Tawny Close (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

6 Peregrine Close (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Clan Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established a clear right to peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the properties.
  2. 2 Whether an injury had been committed or was reasonably apprehended justifying a final interdict.
  3. 3 Whether there was any other satisfactory remedy available to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court assumed, without deciding, that the appellant had established a clear right to occupy the properties. However, the appellant failed to prove that an injury had been committed or was reasonably apprehended. The evidence showed no unlawful interference with his occupation of the properties, and any alleged interference was disputed on the papers. The appellant's complaints were substantially watered down in reply, and the disputes of fact could not be resolved without oral evidence. Relief in respect of the Erinvale property was conceded as unwarranted. Accordingly, the requirements for a final interdict were not met, and the appeal had to fail.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel where applicable.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel where applicable.