Solar Mounting Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Engala Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (3717/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 155 (5 September 2014)

Solar Mounting Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Engala Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (3717/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 155 (5 September 2014)

The applicant was in possession of, or at least had a right of access to, the property described in the founding papers at the time of the alleged spoliation. The first respondent, through its representative Pipe, deprived the applicant of the enjoyment and exercise of such right by physically removing the applicant and its employees from the site on 12 August 2014. The respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence that the deprivation was lawful under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, relying instead on vague and general averments. The court found that the applicant need not have exclusive possession and that the cause or legality of possession is irrelevant in spoliation...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 155
Parties
Applicant: Solar Mounting Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Engala Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Schletter South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sun Edison Energy Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2014
Case Number
3717/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Confirmation Hearing
Outcome
Rule nisi confirmed; costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
G.J.M. Wright
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Possessory Remedy, Spoliation Order, Right of Access, Counter Spoliation
Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Possessory Remedy Spoliation Order Right of Access Counter Spoliation

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solar Mounting Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Engala Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Schletter South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sun Edison Energy Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Confirmation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in possession or had a right of access to the property at the time of the alleged spoliation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was dispossessed forcibly or wrongfully by the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's actions constituted lawful deprivation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was in possession of, or at least had a right of access to, the property described in the founding papers at the time of the alleged spoliation. The first respondent, through its representative Pipe, deprived the applicant of the enjoyment and exercise of such right by physically removing the applicant and its employees from the site on 12 August 2014. The respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence that the deprivation was lawful under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, relying instead on vague and general averments. The court found that the applicant need not have exclusive possession and that the cause or legality of possession is irrelevant in spoliation...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi confirmed; costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is confirmed.
  • The first respondent is to pay the costs of the application.