Mpela and Another v Mkhize (13750/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 367 (9 July 2020)

Mpela and Another v Mkhize (13750/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 367 (9 July 2020)

The court found the applicants' version of events credible and corroborated by independent witnesses, while the respondent's version was far-fetched and untenable. The respondent's conduct constituted unlawful interference with the applicants' ownership and possession of the property. The principles from Plascon-Evans and Room Hire Co were applied, allowing the court to reject the respondent's version on the papers. The points in limine raised by the respondent, including misjoinder, were found to lack merit. The applicants established a clear right to urgent interdictory relief, and the respondent was interdicted from further unlawful conduct. Costs were awarded to the applicants as the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 367
Parties
Applicant: Mpela, Ramokone Doris; Applicant: Mpela, Mangaliso Isaac; Respondent: Mkhize, Adv Senzo Wiseman
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 July 2020
Case Number
13750/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application for Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application granted. Urgent interdictory relief awarded in favour of the applicants. Costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
Adams
Legal Topics
Interdictory Relief, Urgent Application, Sectional Title Dispute, Spoliation, Ownership and Possession
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interdictory Relief Urgent Application Sectional Title Dispute Spoliation Ownership and Possession

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpela, Ramokone Doris

Applicant

Mpela, Mangaliso Isaac

Applicant

Mkhize, Adv Senzo Wiseman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application for Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unlawfully interfered with the applicants' ownership and possession of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's version of events is so far-fetched as to be rejected on the papers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicants' version of events credible and corroborated by independent witnesses, while the respondent's version was far-fetched and untenable. The respondent's conduct constituted unlawful interference with the applicants' ownership and possession of the property. The principles from Plascon-Evans and Room Hire Co were applied, allowing the court to reject the respondent's version on the papers. The points in limine raised by the respondent, including misjoinder, were found to lack merit. The applicants established a clear right to urgent interdictory relief, and the respondent was interdicted from further unlawful conduct. Costs were awarded to the applicants as the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Urgent interdictory relief awarded in favour of the applicants. Costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The matter is declared urgent.
  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained forthwith from interfering with the applicants' ownership and possession of the property described as Section 1, Courtney Court, 6 Piet Retief Street, Alberton North, Johannesburg.