Masazie Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Fan (2022/3979) [2022] ZAGPJHC 98 (18 February 2022)

Masazie Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Fan (2022/3979) [2022] ZAGPJHC 98 (18 February 2022)

The applicant failed to establish that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises on 21 January 2022. The respondent's version, supported by her testimony and the presence of the police at the premises, was that the applicant's possession was already interfered with on 30 November 2021 at the instance of the police. The applicant did not seriously dispute this version and relied only on inferential evidence from particulars of claim and inadmissible hearsay. The video evidence introduced by the applicant further supported the respondent's account. The applicant also failed to prove that the respondent, rather than the police, was responsible for any dispossession....

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 98
Parties
Applicant: Masazie Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Show Pao Fan
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2022
Case Number
2022/3979
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Spoliation Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Charles Thompson
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Possession, Spoliation Order, Unlawful Dispossession
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Possession Spoliation Order Unlawful Dispossession

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masazie Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Show Pao Fan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Spoliation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises on 21 January 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was dispossessed of the premises unlawfully and by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established the requirements for a spoliation order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises on 21 January 2022. The respondent's version, supported by her testimony and the presence of the police at the premises, was that the applicant's possession was already interfered with on 30 November 2021 at the instance of the police. The applicant did not seriously dispute this version and relied only on inferential evidence from particulars of claim and inadmissible hearsay. The video evidence introduced by the applicant further supported the respondent's account. The applicant also failed to prove that the respondent, rather than the police, was responsible for any dispossession....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.