Rossouw and Another v Edwards and Another (5633/11) [2011] ZAWCHC 250 (3 June 2011)

Rossouw and Another v Edwards and Another (5633/11) [2011] ZAWCHC 250 (3 June 2011)

The court found that the applicants had been in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the dwelling on the farm, as evidenced by their occupation, retention of keys, and leaving personal property in the house. The fact that other persons also had access did not negate their possession. The court held that the applicants did not voluntarily relinquish possession; rather, they were compelled to leave due to intolerable conditions created by the first respondent. The decisive act of dispossession occurred when the first respondent changed the locks on 8 March 2011, thereby excluding the applicants from access and control. The court emphasized that spoliation proceedings are concerned only...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 250
Parties
Applicant: Adriaan Daniel Rossouw; Applicant: TJ. Rossouw; Respondent: Craig Edwards; Respondent: Inline Trading 45 (EDMS) Bpk
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2011
Case Number
5633/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Mandament Van Spolie
Outcome
Application granted. The respondents are ordered to restore possession of the dwelling to the applicants and to pay the applicants' costs.
Judges
Louw
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Unlawful Deprivation of Possession, Employment Related Accommodation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Unlawful Deprivation of Possession Employment Related Accommodation

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adriaan Daniel Rossouw

Applicant

TJ. Rossouw

Applicant

Craig Edwards

Respondent

Inline Trading 45 (EDMS) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Mandament Van Spolie

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the farm dwelling prior to the alleged dispossession.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were unlawfully deprived of possession of the dwelling without their consent and against their will.
  3. 3 Whether the mandament van spolie should be granted to restore possession to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had been in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the dwelling on the farm, as evidenced by their occupation, retention of keys, and leaving personal property in the house. The fact that other persons also had access did not negate their possession. The court held that the applicants did not voluntarily relinquish possession; rather, they were compelled to leave due to intolerable conditions created by the first respondent. The decisive act of dispossession occurred when the first respondent changed the locks on 8 March 2011, thereby excluding the applicants from access and control. The court emphasized that spoliation proceedings are concerned only...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondents are ordered to restore possession of the dwelling to the applicants and to pay the applicants' costs.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to restore the applicants' possession of the dwelling on Elandspoort Wildplaas, Vaalwater, district Uniondale.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the applicants' costs.