Makhabane and Others v Rapelang Orabeleng (Pty) Ltd and Others (7132/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 92 (7 March 2025)

Makhabane and Others v Rapelang Orabeleng (Pty) Ltd and Others (7132/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 92 (7 March 2025)

The court found that the First Respondent, Rapelang Orabeleng (Pty) Ltd, was a bona fide third-party possessor of the cattle at the time the application was launched. There was no evidence of collusion or mala fide conduct between Rapelang and the soldiers who initially deprived the Applicants of possession. The court held that spoliation proceedings are not competent against a bona fide third-party possessor, as the mandament van spolie is a possessory remedy and does not extend to vindicatory claims. The Applicants' remedy, if any, lies in a vindicatory action, not in spoliation. Accordingly, the rule nisi was discharged with costs.

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 92
Parties
Applicant: Sempe Makhabane; Applicant: Thandy Makhabane; Applicant: Manti Makhabane; Applicant: Nthabiseng Agnes Lepile; Applicant: Leboea Noosi; Respondent: Rapelang Orabeleng (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Defence and Military Veterans - Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Sheriff of the District of Ladybrand; Respondent: Wonderhoek Farms (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2025
Case Number
7132/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Spoliation Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs.
Judges
Grobler, AJ
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Bona Fide Possession, Spoliation Defences, Rei Vindicatio, Pound Master Liability
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Bona Fide Possession Spoliation Defences Rei Vindicatio Pound Master Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sempe Makhabane

Applicant

Thandy Makhabane

Applicant

Manti Makhabane

Applicant

Nthabiseng Agnes Lepile

Applicant

Leboea Noosi

Applicant

Rapelang Orabeleng (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans - Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Sheriff of the District of Ladybrand

Respondent

Wonderhoek Farms (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Spoliation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether spoliation proceedings are competent against a bona fide third-party possessor.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants are entitled to restoration of possession of cattle from the First Respondent under the mandament van spolie.
  3. 3 Whether the First Respondent acted as a co-spoliator or merely as a bona fide possessor.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Respondent, Rapelang Orabeleng (Pty) Ltd, was a bona fide third-party possessor of the cattle at the time the application was launched. There was no evidence of collusion or mala fide conduct between Rapelang and the soldiers who initially deprived the Applicants of possession. The court held that spoliation proceedings are not competent against a bona fide third-party possessor, as the mandament van spolie is a possessory remedy and does not extend to vindicatory claims. The Applicants' remedy, if any, lies in a vindicatory action, not in spoliation. Accordingly, the rule nisi was discharged with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged with costs, the costs of counsel to be on scale B.