Lobelo and Another v Kukama and Another (71429/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 478 (21 May 2014)

Lobelo and Another v Kukama and Another (71429/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 478 (21 May 2014)

The court found that both applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises, as evidenced by their access and control, including possession of keys and remote controls. However, the court held that the applicants failed to prove they were unlawfully deprived of possession. The exchange of letters, placement of security guards, and alleged changing of locks did not amount to spoliation, as there was no evidence that the applicants or their employees were prevented from accessing the premises. The affidavits of employees and the applicants' own concessions indicated continued access. As the applicants did not satisfy the requirement of unlawful deprivation, the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 478
Parties
Applicant: Lobelo, Kagiso Lambert; Applicant: Dephuka Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kukama, Aobakwe Reginald Koketso; Respondent: Peolwane Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Case Number
71429/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Thobane
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Peaceful and Undisturbed Possession, Unlawful Deprivation, Director Delinquency, Eviction
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Peaceful and Undisturbed Possession Unlawful Deprivation Director Delinquency Eviction

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lobelo, Kagiso Lambert

Applicant

Dephuka Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Kukama, Aobakwe Reginald Koketso

Respondent

Peolwane Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property known as portion 3 (a portion of portion 4) of the farm D[...].
  2. 2 Whether the respondents deprived the applicants of possession forcibly or wrongfully against their will.
  3. 3 Whether, if spoliation occurred, a case was made for eviction, interdicts, and costs against the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises, as evidenced by their access and control, including possession of keys and remote controls. However, the court held that the applicants failed to prove they were unlawfully deprived of possession. The exchange of letters, placement of security guards, and alleged changing of locks did not amount to spoliation, as there was no evidence that the applicants or their employees were prevented from accessing the premises. The affidavits of employees and the applicants' own concessions indicated continued access. As the applicants did not satisfy the requirement of unlawful deprivation, the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs jointly and severally.