Kokwe v Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality and Others (1660/2013) [2014] ZANWHC 42 (11 September 2014)

Kokwe v Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality and Others (1660/2013) [2014] ZANWHC 42 (11 September 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove actual or active exercise of the right to use and occupy the property. The evidence showed the property was a vacant stand, with only occasional visits and a fence erected after construction had commenced. There was insufficient proof of peaceful and undisturbed possession, as the road was used by the public and the applicant did not demonstrate factual possession prior to the alleged spoliation. The applicant did not discharge the onus to prove quasi-possession or unlawful deprivation. Consequently, the requirements for mandament van spolie were not met, and the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZANWHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Otladisang Michael Kokwe; Respondent: Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality; Respondent: Tshwaraganang & Associates CC; Respondent: Minister of Water Affairs; Respondent: Chief Mankuroane: The Chief of the Batlhaping Ba-Ga Phuduhucwana Traditional Community
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2014
Case Number
1660/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
N. Gutta
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Quasi Possession, Unlawful Deprivation, Possessory Remedy
Land and Property Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Quasi Possession Unlawful Deprivation Possessory Remedy

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otladisang Michael Kokwe

Applicant

Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality

Respondent

Tshwaraganang & Associates CC

Respondent

Minister of Water Affairs

Respondent

Chief Mankuroane: The Chief of the Batlhaping Ba-Ga Phuduhucwana Traditional Community

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant proved quasi-possession of the right to use and occupy the property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unlawfully deprived of his quasi-possession of the property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a spoliation order compelling removal of the road and pipeline.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove actual or active exercise of the right to use and occupy the property. The evidence showed the property was a vacant stand, with only occasional visits and a fence erected after construction had commenced. There was insufficient proof of peaceful and undisturbed possession, as the road was used by the public and the applicant did not demonstrate factual possession prior to the alleged spoliation. The applicant did not discharge the onus to prove quasi-possession or unlawful deprivation. Consequently, the requirements for mandament van spolie were not met, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.