Pheme v Kgatle and Another (39500/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 509 (14 September 2020)

Pheme v Kgatle and Another (39500/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 509 (14 September 2020)

The court found that the applicant was in de facto possession of the property and was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed by the respondents without a valid court order and against his consent. The urgency of the matter was established by the applicant's homelessness and immediate need for relief. The requirements for a spoliation order were satisfied, and the points in limine regarding non-joinder and urgency were dismissed. The court held that restoration of possession was warranted and ordered the status quo ante to be maintained.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 509
Parties
Applicant: Andrew Pheme; Respondent: Lekogolo Reuben Kgatle; Respondent: Makosa Martha Ramathoka
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Case Number
39500/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Spoliation Application Heard in Urgent Court
Outcome
Application granted; spoliation order issued in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Kubushi
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Urgent Interdict, Non Joinder, Possession, Eviction Without Court Order
Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Urgent Interdict Non Joinder Possession Eviction Without Court Order

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

Andrew Pheme

Applicant

Lekogolo Reuben Kgatle

Respondent

Makosa Martha Ramathoka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Spoliation Application Heard in Urgent Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unlawfully dispossessed of the property without a court order.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is sufficiently urgent to warrant immediate relief.
  3. 3 Whether there was a misjoinder for failing to cite the seller and bouncers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was in de facto possession of the property and was forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed by the respondents without a valid court order and against his consent. The urgency of the matter was established by the applicant's homelessness and immediate need for relief. The requirements for a spoliation order were satisfied, and the points in limine regarding non-joinder and urgency were dismissed. The court held that restoration of possession was warranted and ordered the status quo ante to be maintained.

Court Disposition

Application granted; spoliation order issued in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The Draft Order marked 'xx' is made an Order of Court, restoring possession of the property to the applicant.