Masha Makopole Traditional Council and Another v Maritz and Another (3667/2018) [2020] ZALMPPHC 84 (2 September 2020)

Masha Makopole Traditional Council and Another v Maritz and Another (3667/2018) [2020] ZALMPPHC 84 (2 September 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to allege or prove that they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property at the time of the alleged dispossession in October 2017. Counsel for the applicants conceded that possession had not been held since at least 2014 and that any dispossession occurred...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 84
Parties
Applicant: Masha Makopole Traditional Council; Applicant: Kgoshi Lengwai Aaron Masha; Respondent: Phillip Maritz; Respondent: Nulane Investment 106 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Strydkraal Farming Community; Respondent: Elias Mahlare Masha
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2020
Case Number
3667/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Naude
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Spoliation, Possession, Interdict, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Spoliation Possession Interdict Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masha Makopole Traditional Council

Applicant

Kgoshi Lengwai Aaron Masha

Applicant

Phillip Maritz

Respondent

Nulane Investment 106 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Strydkraal Farming Community

Respondent

Elias Mahlare Masha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the farms and pivots at the time of alleged dispossession.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established the requirements for a spoliation order (mandament van spolie).
  3. 3 Whether the application was brought against the correct respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to allege or prove that they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property at the time of the alleged dispossession in October 2017. Counsel for the applicants conceded that possession had not been held since at least 2014 and that any dispossession occurred in 2014 by the Third and Fourth Respondents. The application was brought against the First and Second Respondents, who were not responsible for the dispossession, and no case was made out against the Third and Fourth Respondents. Furthermore, the application was instituted some four years after the alleged dispossession, which is not a reasonable time for restoration of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the First to Fourth Respondents, jointly and severally, the one to pay, the other to be absolved.