Marindafontein (Pty) Ltd v Stepforth and Another (2022/033875) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1406 (5 December 2023)

Marindafontein (Pty) Ltd v Stepforth and Another (2022/033875) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1406 (5 December 2023)

The court held that Marindafontein, as owner of the immovable property (Petit Airfield), was entitled to seek eviction of Mr Rees from any part of its property, including the hangar, regardless of whether the hangar was movable or had acceded to the land. Mr Rees failed to establish a right of occupation, as the alleged agreements lacked sufficient particularity and the invoices did not support his case. The absence of confirmatory affidavits was not decisive, and neither party sought referral to oral evidence or trial. Applying the more stringent threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court found no reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason for the appeal...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1406
Parties
Applicant: Marindafontein (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Glen Stopforth; Respondent: Kevin Rees
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2023
Case Number
2022/033875
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
PG Louw
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Test, Eviction, Right of Occupation, Ownership of Movable and Immovable Property
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Test Eviction Right of Occupation Ownership of Movable and Immovable Property

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marindafontein (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Glen Stopforth

Respondent

Kevin Rees

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established locus standi to seek eviction from the hangar without proving ownership of the movable property.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent established a right to remain in occupation of the hangar.
  3. 3 Whether the absence or presence of confirmatory affidavits affected the outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Marindafontein, as owner of the immovable property (Petit Airfield), was entitled to seek eviction of Mr Rees from any part of its property, including the hangar, regardless of whether the hangar was movable or had acceded to the land. Mr Rees failed to establish a right of occupation, as the alleged agreements lacked sufficient particularity and the invoices did not support his case. The absence of confirmatory affidavits was not decisive, and neither party sought referral to oral evidence or trial. Applying the more stringent threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court found no reasonable prospect of success or compelling reason for the appeal...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.