Laughland v Gouws (36277/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 783 (3 October 2014)

Laughland v Gouws (36277/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 783 (3 October 2014)

The applicant failed to prove that he was in undisturbed possession at the time of approaching the court. The farm had already been leased to a third party, making restoration of possession impossible. The applicant had vacated the property and was granted permission to collect his belongings, which he failed to do. There was no justification for the application, and the applicant did not discharge the onus required for mandament van spolie. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 783
Parties
Applicant: David Scott Laughland; Respondent: Gouws M G
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2014
Case Number
36277/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
N M Mavundla
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Lease Termination, Possession, Arrear Rent
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Lease Termination Possession Arrear Rent

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Scott Laughland

Applicant

Gouws M G

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession of the farm and movables.
  2. 2 Whether restoration of possession is possible given the farm has been leased to a third party.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had any possessory right at the time of approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that he was in undisturbed possession at the time of approaching the court. The farm had already been leased to a third party, making restoration of possession impossible. The applicant had vacated the property and was granted permission to collect his belongings, which he failed to do. There was no justification for the application, and the applicant did not discharge the onus required for mandament van spolie. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.