Muhanelwa v Gcingca (CCT 117/18) [2019] ZACC 21 (17 May 2019)

Muhanelwa v Gcingca (CCT 117/18) [2019] ZACC 21 (17 May 2019)

The Constitutional Court held that the dispute was a commercial matter between private parties and did not raise any constitutional issue or point of law of general public importance. The owner could regain possession by ordinary legal means, such as settling the outstanding debt or seeking appropriate relief through the courts. The spoliation order did not result in permanent dispossession or eviction, nor did it implicate the owner's constitutional right of access to housing. There was no evidence that the owner was not in a financial position to pursue these remedies. The application for leave to appeal was therefore not in the interests of justice and was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZACC 21
Parties
Applicant: Awelani Rexon Muhanelwa; Respondent: Floyd Gcingca
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Case Number
CCT 117/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Builder's Lien, Possession, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Section 26 Constitution
Civil Procedure Land and Property Spoliation Builder's Lien Possession Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Section 26 Constitution

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Awelani Rexon Muhanelwa

Applicant

Floyd Gcingca

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal by High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal raises a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance.
  2. 2 What is legally required for the owner to regain possession of the property after a spoliation order is given effect to.
  3. 3 Whether the spoliation order impacts the owner's right of access to housing and results in permanent dispossession or eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the dispute was a commercial matter between private parties and did not raise any constitutional issue or point of law of general public importance. The owner could regain possession by ordinary legal means, such as settling the outstanding debt or seeking appropriate relief through the courts. The spoliation order did not result in permanent dispossession or eviction, nor did it implicate the owner's constitutional right of access to housing. There was no evidence that the owner was not in a financial position to pursue these remedies. The application for leave to appeal was therefore not in the interests of justice and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.