Tawana v TUPA 2012 (Pty) Ltd (2021/36326) [2022] ZAGPJHC 369 (27 May 2022)

Tawana v TUPA 2012 (Pty) Ltd (2021/36326) [2022] ZAGPJHC 369 (27 May 2022)

The applicant failed to establish that he was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises at the relevant time, as the Sheriff’s return of service indicated the premises were vacated and this was not challenged. The urgency of the application was not substantiated, as the applicant did not demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The contempt of court allegations were not supported by evidence in the founding affidavit or in the application for leave to appeal. The court did not improperly amend its judgment after being functus officio. Applying the elevated threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 369
Parties
Applicant: Tshepo Tawana; Respondent: TUPA 2012 (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Case Number
2021/36326
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Spoliation and Contempt Applications.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
S C Mia
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Urgent Application, Peaceful Possession, Eviction Proceedings, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Land and Property Spoliation Urgent Application Peaceful Possession Eviction Proceedings Contempt of Court

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshepo Tawana

Applicant

TUPA 2012 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Spoliation and Contempt Applications.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made out a case for spoliation and was in peaceful, undisturbed possession of the premises.
  2. 2 Whether the application was sufficiently urgent to warrant relief in the urgent court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established grounds for contempt of court against the attorney and another party.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that he was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises at the relevant time, as the Sheriff’s return of service indicated the premises were vacated and this was not challenged. The urgency of the application was not substantiated, as the applicant did not demonstrate that substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The contempt of court allegations were not supported by evidence in the founding affidavit or in the application for leave to appeal. The court did not improperly amend its judgment after being functus officio. Applying the elevated threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.