Myeleyele and Another v Pssimeco International and Another (21682/02) [2002] ZAGPHC 36 (12 November 2002)

Myeleyele and Another v Pssimeco International and Another (21682/02) [2002] ZAGPHC 36 (12 November 2002)

The court found that the first respondent (landlord) did not physically interfere with the supply of electricity; rather, the second respondent (supplier) acted on the landlord's instruction due to arrears. The applicants had no contractual relationship with the second respondent, and there was no contractual obligation alleged requiring the first respondent to provide electricity. Without a legal peg for enforceable rights, and given the absence of payment prospects, the court held that no order could be made against either respondent to restore electricity. The application for spoliation failed because the landlord did not physically disconnect the supply, and the supplier was entitled...

Citation
[2002] ZAGPHC 36
Parties
Applicant: Clifford Myeleyele; Applicant: Pioneer Place; Respondent: Pssimeco International; Respondent: City Power (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2002
Case Number
21682/02
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim and Final Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Electricity Supply, Landlord Tenant Dispute, Interdict, Contractual Relationship
Land and Property Civil Procedure Spoliation Electricity Supply Landlord Tenant Dispute Interdict Contractual Relationship

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clifford Myeleyele

Applicant

Pioneer Place

Applicant

Pssimeco International

Respondent

City Power (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim and Final Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disconnection of electricity supply by the second respondent at the instruction of the first respondent constitutes unlawful spoliation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a legally enforceable right to the restoration of electricity supply.
  3. 3 Whether any order can be made against the first respondent or second respondent to restore electricity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent (landlord) did not physically interfere with the supply of electricity; rather, the second respondent (supplier) acted on the landlord's instruction due to arrears. The applicants had no contractual relationship with the second respondent, and there was no contractual obligation alleged requiring the first respondent to provide electricity. Without a legal peg for enforceable rights, and given the absence of payment prospects, the court held that no order could be made against either respondent to restore electricity. The application for spoliation failed because the landlord did not physically disconnect the supply, and the supplier was entitled...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.