JJ and Electrical Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Home Investment 560 (Pty) Ltd and Another (D27/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 37 (27 June 2023)

JJ and Electrical Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Home Investment 560 (Pty) Ltd and Another (D27/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 37 (27 June 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises at the relevant time. The evidence, including WhatsApp messages and the applicants' own admissions, indicated that they had ceased trading since the electricity was disconnected, were preparing to remove their property, and were seeking new premises for 2023. The respondents had obtained an eviction order, and the applicants' possession was not undisturbed. The applicants attempted to supplement their case in reply, but the founding papers did not support their claim of ongoing possession. The court concluded that the requirements for a mandament van spolie were...

Citation
[2023] ZAKZDHC 37
Parties
Applicant: JJ and Electrical Construction (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Ariyo John Ojo; Respondent: Home Investment 560 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: YS Accolla
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Case Number
D27/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Marimuthu
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Possession of Premises, Eviction Proceedings, Restoration of Access
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Possession of Premises Eviction Proceedings Restoration of Access

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JJ and Electrical Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ariyo John Ojo

Applicant

Home Investment 560 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

YS Accolla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were unlawfully deprived of possession by the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a mandament van spolie were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises at the relevant time. The evidence, including WhatsApp messages and the applicants' own admissions, indicated that they had ceased trading since the electricity was disconnected, were preparing to remove their property, and were seeking new premises for 2023. The respondents had obtained an eviction order, and the applicants' possession was not undisturbed. The applicants attempted to supplement their case in reply, but the founding papers did not support their claim of ongoing possession. The court concluded that the requirements for a mandament van spolie were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the costs of suit, the one paying the other to be absolved.