Matomela v Maine and Others (1703/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 123 (8 August 2016)

Matomela v Maine and Others (1703/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 123 (8 August 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove possession in the sense required for spoliation relief. His access to the property was derived from his position as minister, subject to the Deacons Court's discretion, and did not amount to possession for his own benefit. The removal of the locks was effected by the police pursuant to a court order, not by the respondents acting unlawfully or by self-help. The applicant's rights were limited to access, not possession, and the mandament van spolie does not protect mere access. Accordingly, the application for restoration of possession was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 123
Parties
Applicant: Eric Nkosivumile Matomela; Respondent: Pobela Benjamin Maine; Respondent: Reverend Molete; Respondent: The Presbyterian Church of Africa
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2016
Case Number
1703/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Reinders
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Possession Vs Access, Church Property Dispute
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Possession Vs Access Church Property Dispute

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Nkosivumile Matomela

Applicant

Pobela Benjamin Maine

Respondent

Reverend Molete

Respondent

The Presbyterian Church of Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession by the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the mandament van spolie protects access or possession in this context.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove possession in the sense required for spoliation relief. His access to the property was derived from his position as minister, subject to the Deacons Court's discretion, and did not amount to possession for his own benefit. The removal of the locks was effected by the police pursuant to a court order, not by the respondents acting unlawfully or by self-help. The applicant's rights were limited to access, not possession, and the mandament van spolie does not protect mere access. Accordingly, the application for restoration of possession was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.