Du Toit v Tsubane (43953/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 507 (20 December 2019)

Du Toit v Tsubane (43953/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 507 (20 December 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any unlawful dispossession or spoliation by the respondent. The evidence showed that the applicant voluntarily undertook to vacate the property in the presence of the police, and there was no credible proof of duress. The respondent lawfully acquired and took transfer of the property, and the applicant's version was not supported by the facts, including photographic evidence of his departure. The application did not meet the requirements for urgency or merit and was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 507
Parties
Applicant: Gerhard Du Toit; Respondent: Mpho Tsubane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Case Number
43953/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Makume
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Possession, Urgent Interdict, Transfer of Property
Civil Procedure Land and Property Spoliation Possession Urgent Interdict Transfer of Property

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

Gerhard Du Toit

Applicant

Mpho Tsubane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unlawfully dispossessed of the property by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to restoration of possession of the property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's undertaking to vacate the property was made under duress.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any unlawful dispossession or spoliation by the respondent. The evidence showed that the applicant voluntarily undertook to vacate the property in the presence of the police, and there was no credible proof of duress. The respondent lawfully acquired and took transfer of the property, and the applicant's version was not supported by the facts, including photographic evidence of his departure. The application did not meet the requirements for urgency or merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.