Ntombela and Another v Baramall (Pty) Ltd (07/13808) [2007] ZAGPHC 260 (4 July 2007)

Ntombela and Another v Baramall (Pty) Ltd (07/13808) [2007] ZAGPHC 260 (4 July 2007)

The court found that the lease agreement between the parties expressly excluded the supply of electricity as a necessary incident of possession or occupation of the premises. The respondent was only obliged to provide the facilities and equipment for electricity, not the supply itself. The applicant failed to establish that the supply of electricity was an incident of possession in this case. The dispute was contractual in nature and not suitable for the mandament van spolie remedy. The court distinguished the present case from precedents where electricity supply was found to be an incident of occupation, holding that such determination depends on the facts and the terms of the agreement....

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 260
Parties
Applicant: Ntombela, Joyce; Applicant: Ntombela Delivery Services CC; Respondent: Baramall (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2007
Case Number
07/13808
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Under Rule 6(12)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
G S S Maluleke
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Lease Agreement, Supply of Electricity, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Lease Agreement Supply of Electricity Urgent Interdict

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

Parties

Ntombela, Joyce

Applicant

Ntombela Delivery Services CC

Applicant

Baramall (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Under Rule 6(12)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supply of electricity is an incident of possession or occupation under the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's disconnection of electricity constitutes spoliation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to restoration of electricity supply via mandament van spolie.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the lease agreement between the parties expressly excluded the supply of electricity as a necessary incident of possession or occupation of the premises. The respondent was only obliged to provide the facilities and equipment for electricity, not the supply itself. The applicant failed to establish that the supply of electricity was an incident of possession in this case. The dispute was contractual in nature and not suitable for the mandament van spolie remedy. The court distinguished the present case from precedents where electricity supply was found to be an incident of occupation, holding that such determination depends on the facts and the terms of the agreement....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.