Steenkamp v Jammine (23065/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 54 (24 January 2022)

Steenkamp v Jammine (23065/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 54 (24 January 2022)

The court found that the appellant failed to prove she was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the respondent's driveway. Her use of the driveway was occasional and not exclusive, and there was no registered servitude or legal arrangement granting her such possession. The respondent's erection of the palisade and gate was on her own property and did not encroach on any servitude area. The magistrate correctly discharged the rule nisi, as the appellant was not unlawfully deprived of possession. The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded against the appellant.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 54
Parties
Appellant: Catharina Marie Petronella Steenkamp; Respondent: Cynthia Audrey Jammine
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2022
Case Number
23065/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision on Urgent Mandament Van Spolie Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded against the appellant.
Judges
Makweya, Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Possession, Servitude Right of Way, Spoliation Remedy
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Possession Servitude Right of Way Spoliation Remedy

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catharina Marie Petronella Steenkamp

Appellant

Cynthia Audrey Jammine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision on Urgent Mandament Van Spolie Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the respondent's driveway prior to the erection of the palisade and gate.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was unlawfully dispossessed of possession by the respondent's actions.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate erred in discharging the rule nisi and awarding costs against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to prove she was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the respondent's driveway. Her use of the driveway was occasional and not exclusive, and there was no registered servitude or legal arrangement granting her such possession. The respondent's erection of the palisade and gate was on her own property and did not encroach on any servitude area. The magistrate correctly discharged the rule nisi, as the appellant was not unlawfully deprived of possession. The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded against the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs awarded against the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.