Ioannis Spyridis t/a Twinz Burger & Ribs v Sasol Pension Fund (28494/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 252 (29 May 2009)

Ioannis Spyridis t/a Twinz Burger & Ribs v Sasol Pension Fund (28494/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 252 (29 May 2009)

The court found that the applicant's right of access to the premises terminated by agreement on 12 August 2008, and any urgency claimed was self-created due to the applicant's failure to remove his goods within the agreed period. The denial of access by the respondent did not amount to unlawful deprivation of possession, as mere denial of access is not spoliation. The possessory remedy sought by the applicant was therefore misconceived, and the application for a spoliation order could not succeed.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 252
Parties
Applicant: Ioannis Spyridis t/a Twinz Burger & Ribs; Respondent: Sasol Pension Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Case Number
28494/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Spoliation Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Sapire
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Unlawful Deprivation of Possession, Urgent Interdict, Eviction, Attachment of Goods
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Unlawful Deprivation of Possession Urgent Interdict Eviction Attachment of Goods

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ioannis Spyridis t/a Twinz Burger & Ribs

Applicant

Sasol Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Spoliation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's refusal to allow the applicant access to the premises to remove goods constitutes spoliation.
  2. 2 Whether urgency exists to justify the relief sought by the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession of the goods remaining on the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's right of access to the premises terminated by agreement on 12 August 2008, and any urgency claimed was self-created due to the applicant's failure to remove his goods within the agreed period. The denial of access by the respondent did not amount to unlawful deprivation of possession, as mere denial of access is not spoliation. The possessory remedy sought by the applicant was therefore misconceived, and the application for a spoliation order could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.