Star Energy Resources (Pty) Ltd v Manonga and Others (6674/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 March 2021)

Star Energy Resources (Pty) Ltd v Manonga and Others (6674/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 March 2021)

The court found that the applicant was in peaceful possession of the business site at the time of the alleged dispossession and that the respondents' conduct amounted to unlawful spoliation. The dispute regarding the termination of the lease agreement could not be resolved on the papers, but the applicant's right to possession was prima facie established. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of harm, as its business operations had ceased due to the respondents' actions. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who continued to suffer damages from being prevented from operating its business. The court was satisfied that the requirements for...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 95
Parties
Applicant: Star Energy Resources (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sibusiso Alfred Manonga; Respondent: Children of the late Elias Alfred Manonga; Respondent: Elias Filling Station (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Manoka Family Trust
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2021
Case Number
6674/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application
Outcome
Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs reserved.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Spoliation, Lease Agreement, Urgent Application
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Interdict Spoliation Lease Agreement Urgent Application

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

Parties

Star Energy Resources (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sibusiso Alfred Manonga

Respondent

Children of the late Elias Alfred Manonga

Respondent

Elias Filling Station (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Manoka Family Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict preventing the respondents from interfering with its possession and business operations at the disputed site.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established the requirements for an interim interdict, including a prima facie right, reasonable apprehension of harm, and balance of convenience.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents unlawfully dispossessed the applicant of the business site without due process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was in peaceful possession of the business site at the time of the alleged dispossession and that the respondents' conduct amounted to unlawful spoliation. The dispute regarding the termination of the lease agreement could not be resolved on the papers, but the applicant's right to possession was prima facie established. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of harm, as its business operations had ceased due to the respondents' actions. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who continued to suffer damages from being prevented from operating its business. The court was satisfied that the requirements for...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicant; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Prayers 2 to 7 of the Notice of Motion dated 9 February 2021 are granted on an interim basis.
  • The interim order is returnable on 25 May 2021.