Dotcom Trading 849 CC v Rand Water (A908/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 974 (12 May 2017)

Dotcom Trading 849 CC v Rand Water (A908/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 974 (12 May 2017)

The court held that the mandament van spolie remedy was not available where the right to possession was based on a disputed contract and the relief sought amounted to specific performance of contractual obligations. The appellant failed to prove possession and dispossession as required for spoliation, and introduced new material facts in its replying affidavit, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the relief sought had become moot as the underlying contract had expired and the equipment had been retrieved by its lawful owner. The court found that no practical result would be achieved by granting the order, and substantial redress could be afforded in due course. Accordingly, the appeal...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 974
Parties
Appellant: Dotcom Trading 849 CC; Respondent: Rand Water
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Case Number
A908/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
H.J Fabricius, N. Ranchod, S.P. Mothle
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Urgent Application, Possession and Dispossession, Specific Performance, Mootness, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Urgent Application Possession and Dispossession Specific Performance Mootness Superior Courts Act

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dotcom Trading 849 CC

Appellant

Rand Water

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandament van spolie remedy was available to the appellant in circumstances where contractual rights were disputed.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved possession and dispossession as required for spoliation.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought had become moot due to the termination of the underlying contract and retrieval of equipment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the mandament van spolie remedy was not available where the right to possession was based on a disputed contract and the relief sought amounted to specific performance of contractual obligations. The appellant failed to prove possession and dispossession as required for spoliation, and introduced new material facts in its replying affidavit, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the relief sought had become moot as the underlying contract had expired and the equipment had been retrieved by its lawful owner. The court found that no practical result would be achieved by granting the order, and substantial redress could be afforded in due course. Accordingly, the appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.