Linksfield Nursery CC and Another v Wickstrom and Others (34695/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 136 (8 July 2015)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a clear right to occupy the property under a valid lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have any legal right to demolish structures or remove items from the property.
  3. 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.