Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd v Hyprop Investments Ltd (65643/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 692 (6 October 2015)

Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd v Hyprop Investments Ltd (65643/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 692 (6 October 2015)

The court found that the respondent unlawfully deprived the applicant of possession of the premises by forcing the locks and removing merchandise without following due process. The respondent's conduct amounted to self-help, which is prohibited under South African law. The delay in bringing the application was not unreasonable and did not affect the urgency, as it was attributable to negotiations and the applicant's inability to trade due to the respondent's actions. The requirements for the mandament van spolie were satisfied: the applicant had peaceful and undisturbed possession and was unlawfully dispossessed. The respondent's arguments regarding abandonment and consent were rejected,...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 692
Parties
Applicant: Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hyprop Investments Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2015
Case Number
65643/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Spoliation Order
Outcome
Application granted; possession of the premises to be restored to the applicant.
Judges
Holland-Müter
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Spoliation Order, Possession of Premises, Parate Executie, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Spoliation Order Possession of Premises Parate Executie Urgent Interdict

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hyprop Investments Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Spoliation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession of the premises by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application affected the urgency and entitlement to relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to spoliation under South African law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent unlawfully deprived the applicant of possession of the premises by forcing the locks and removing merchandise without following due process. The respondent's conduct amounted to self-help, which is prohibited under South African law. The delay in bringing the application was not unreasonable and did not affect the urgency, as it was attributable to negotiations and the applicant's inability to trade due to the respondent's actions. The requirements for the mandament van spolie were satisfied: the applicant had peaceful and undisturbed possession and was unlawfully dispossessed. The respondent's arguments regarding abandonment and consent were rejected,...

Court Disposition

Application granted; possession of the premises to be restored to the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to immediately restore the applicant's possession of shops 39, 40, and 41 Woodlands Boulevard, 100 Woodlake Avenue, Pretorius Park, Pretoria.
  • The respondent must allow the applicant unrestricted access to the premises.