Jacobs and Others v Zinvomax (Pty) Ltd and Another (1956/2021) [2022] ZANCHC 10 (11 March 2022)

Jacobs and Others v Zinvomax (Pty) Ltd and Another (1956/2021) [2022] ZANCHC 10 (11 March 2022)

The applicants failed to establish in their founding affidavits that they were unlawfully deprived of possession of their business premises. The evidence showed that the structure occupied by the third and fourth applicants was destroyed by fire and was not safe for occupation, making restoration impossible. The first and second applicants did not demonstrate that the partially constructed fence deprived them of possession; at most, it was an inconvenience, not spoliation. The requirements for a final interdict were not met in the founding papers. The application was rash and ill-conceived, and costs should follow the result, but a punitive costs order was not justified due to the...

Citation
[2022] ZANCHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Willem Jacobus Petrus Jacobs; Applicant: Huang Feng; Applicant: Kamal Hossain Haji Mamtaz; Applicant: Velile Makhaza; Respondent: Zinvomax (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bernard Markram
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Case Number
1956/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Relief and Costs
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged; applicants to pay ordinary party and party costs, jointly and severally.
Judges
Lever
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Interim Interdict, Possession of Business Premises, Structural Integrity Dispute, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Interim Interdict Possession of Business Premises Structural Integrity Dispute Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Jacobus Petrus Jacobs

Applicant

Huang Feng

Applicant

Kamal Hossain Haji Mamtaz

Applicant

Velile Makhaza

Applicant

Zinvomax (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Bernard Markram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Relief and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established spoliation entitling them to restoration of possession of their business premises.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants made out a case for a final interdict in the founding affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether the structures in question were safe for occupation after the fire.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish in their founding affidavits that they were unlawfully deprived of possession of their business premises. The evidence showed that the structure occupied by the third and fourth applicants was destroyed by fire and was not safe for occupation, making restoration impossible. The first and second applicants did not demonstrate that the partially constructed fence deprived them of possession; at most, it was an inconvenience, not spoliation. The requirements for a final interdict were not met in the founding papers. The application was rash and ill-conceived, and costs should follow the result, but a punitive costs order was not justified due to the...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged; applicants to pay ordinary party and party costs, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • The applicants will pay the ordinary taxed or agreed party and party costs, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.