Mathevula and Others v Origin Manufacturers and Distributors t/a Home Hyper City (A213/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 331 (19 May 2022)

Mathevula and Others v Origin Manufacturers and Distributors t/a Home Hyper City (A213/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 331 (19 May 2022)

The court found that the respondent had established a clear right to conduct its business and manage the rental premises, and that ownership was not a prerequisite for locus standi. The evidence showed that the appellants' conduct, including intimidation, threats, and disruption at the respondent's premises, created a reasonable apprehension of harm. The court a quo correctly weighed the mutually destructive versions, finding the respondent's version more reliable based on concessions made by the appellants and corroborating evidence. The respondent had no adequate alternative remedy, as advised by the police, and the interdict did not infringe on the appellants' constitutional rights...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 331
Parties
Appellant: Benjamin Khazamula Mathevula; Appellant: Jennifer Suzan Kekana; Appellant: Rea Tatsawane Baloi; Appellant: Lepudi Nthabiseng Moretsele; Appellant: Hendrietta Nthawa Mathebula; Respondent: Origin Manufacturers and Distributors t/a Home Hyper City
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Case Number
A213/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Final Interdict
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kooverjie, Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Locus Standi, Mutually Destructive Versions, Reasonable Apprehension of Harm, Alternative Remedy
Civil Procedure Land and Property Final Interdict Locus Standi Mutually Destructive Versions Reasonable Apprehension of Harm Alternative Remedy

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Khazamula Mathevula

Appellant

Jennifer Suzan Kekana

Appellant

Rea Tatsawane Baloi

Appellant

Lepudi Nthabiseng Moretsele

Appellant

Hendrietta Nthawa Mathebula

Appellant

Origin Manufacturers and Distributors t/a Home Hyper City

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had locus standi to seek an interdict.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' conduct was unlawful and justified the granting of a final interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a final interdict were satisfied, including clear right, injury committed or apprehended, and absence of alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had established a clear right to conduct its business and manage the rental premises, and that ownership was not a prerequisite for locus standi. The evidence showed that the appellants' conduct, including intimidation, threats, and disruption at the respondent's premises, created a reasonable apprehension of harm. The court a quo correctly weighed the mutually destructive versions, finding the respondent's version more reliable based on concessions made by the appellants and corroborating evidence. The respondent had no adequate alternative remedy, as advised by the police, and the interdict did not infringe on the appellants' constitutional rights...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.