Linksfield Nursery CC and Another v Wickstrom and Others (34695/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 136 (8 July 2015)
The applicants established a clear right to occupy the property under a valid lease agreement with the Gauteng Provincial Government, which remains in effect on a monthly basis. The respondents failed to prove any superior right, as the purported sale of the property to the fifth respondent was rendered null due to non-payment of the purchase price, and ownership remains with the Provincial Government. The respondents' actions in demolishing structures and removing items from the property constitute an injury actually committed and ongoing harm to the applicants' business. There is no adequate alternative remedy, as damages would be insufficient given the insolvency of the first...
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPJHC 136
- Parties
- Applicant: Linksfield Nursery CC; Applicant: Ebenhaeser de Villiers; Respondent: Amanda Wickstrom; Respondent: James Anthony Wickstrom; Respondent: Sasha Wickstrom; Respondent: Nicholis Wickstrom; Respondent: Basfour 3472 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Thinus Labuschagne
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 8 July 2015
- Case Number
- 34695/2014
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Rule Nisi and Supplementary Affidavits
- Outcome
- Final interdict granted against first to fifth respondents; application against sixth respondent previously dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- M A Makume
- Legal Topics
- Final Interdict, Lease Agreement, Right of Occupation, Fixtures and Accession, Urgent Application
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Linksfield Nursery CC
Applicant
Ebenhaeser de Villiers
Applicant
Amanda Wickstrom
Respondent
James Anthony Wickstrom
Respondent
Sasha Wickstrom
Respondent
Nicholis Wickstrom
Respondent
Basfour 3472 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Thinus Labuschagne
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Rule Nisi and Supplementary Affidavits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have a clear right to occupy the property under a valid lease agreement.
- 2 Whether the respondents have any legal right to demolish structures or remove items from the property.
- 3 Whether the requirements for a final interdict are satisfied, including injury and absence of alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants established a clear right to occupy the property under a valid lease agreement with the Gauteng Provincial Government, which remains in effect on a monthly basis. The respondents failed to prove any superior right, as the purported sale of the property to the fifth respondent was rendered null due to non-payment of the purchase price, and ownership remains with the Provincial Government. The respondents' actions in demolishing structures and removing items from the property constitute an injury actually committed and ongoing harm to the applicants' business. There is no adequate alternative remedy, as damages would be insufficient given the insolvency of the first...
Court Disposition
Final interdict granted against first to fifth respondents; application against sixth respondent previously dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents, or any person in their employment or contracted by them, are interdicted from demolishing any structure and/or removing any items fixed or unfixed on the property described as Portion 1 situate at Rietfontein 61 IR.
- The respondents are ordered to repair or bear the fair and reasonable costs of fixing or restoring damage done on the property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment