Herman Steyn Erfgename CC and Another v Mdau N.O and Others (2687/23) [2023] ZAMPMHC 25 (31 July 2023)

Herman Steyn Erfgename CC and Another v Mdau N.O and Others (2687/23) [2023] ZAMPMHC 25 (31 July 2023)

The court found that although the sale agreements may have been cancelled, the applicants had granted the respondents permission to occupy the properties pending payment of occupational rent. The continued occupation by the respondents, in light of this permission and ongoing negotiations, does not amount to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAMPMHC 25
Parties
Applicant: Herman Steyn Erfgename CC; Applicant: Rietvlei Forest Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Boy Dimon Mdau N.O.; Respondent: Khethiwe Elizabeth Mdau N.O.; Respondent: Boy Simon Mdau N.O.
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2023
Case Number
2687/23
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Finalization of Cancellation and Damages Action
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Z Gumede
Legal Topics
Sale of Immovable Property, Occupational Rent, Cancellation of Contract, Eviction Proceedings, Interim Interdict, Trespass
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sale of Immovable Property Occupational Rent Cancellation of Contract Eviction Proceedings Interim Interdict Trespass

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herman Steyn Erfgename CC

Applicant

Rietvlei Forest Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Boy Dimon Mdau N.O.

Respondent

Khethiwe Elizabeth Mdau N.O.

Respondent

Boy Simon Mdau N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Finalization of Cancellation and Damages Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an urgent interdict preventing the respondents from entering or renting out the properties pending finalization of cancellation and damages proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' continued occupation amounts to trespassing after alleged cancellation of the sale agreements.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have shown irreparable harm and lack of alternative remedies justifying interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the sale agreements may have been cancelled, the applicants had granted the respondents permission to occupy the properties pending payment of occupational rent. The continued occupation by the respondents, in light of this permission and ongoing negotiations, does not amount to trespass. The applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as they retain ownership and possession of the purchase price, and have alternative remedies such as damages and eviction proceedings under clause 16.2. The requirements for an urgent interim interdict were not satisfied, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The urgent application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.