Travico (Pty) Ltd v Kinnear and Others (8288/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 26 (13 April 2007)

Travico (Pty) Ltd v Kinnear and Others (8288/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 26 (13 April 2007)

The court found that the applicant had acquired the shares and control of the seventh respondent pursuant to a valid deed of sale, and that possession and management of the business were handed over to the applicant. The first respondent unlawfully dispossessed the applicant by taking control of the business and assets without a valid court order or recourse to arbitration, as required by the agreement. The respondents' denial of the applicant's control was not supported by the facts, including correspondence and conduct after the sale. The court held that the applicant was entitled to a spoliation order restoring possession and control, as the respondents' actions amounted to illicit...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Travico (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Fred George Kinnear; Respondent: Protours Isle of Man Ltd; Respondent: Eagle Creek Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Timothy Mpopoli Mathebula; Respondent: Patricia Nora Senani Fakude-Nkuna N.O.; Respondent: Cornelius Francois Marais; Respondent: Coachcor SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2007
Case Number
8288/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination After Opposed Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted. Spoliation proven. Urgent relief and restoration of possession ordered.
Judges
Ebersohn
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Mandament Van Spolie, Share Sale Dispute, Urgent Interdict, Company Control
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Spoliation Mandament Van Spolie Share Sale Dispute Urgent Interdict Company Control

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Travico (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Fred George Kinnear

Respondent

Protours Isle of Man Ltd

Respondent

Eagle Creek Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Timothy Mpopoli Mathebula

Respondent

Patricia Nora Senani Fakude-Nkuna N.O.

Respondent

Cornelius Francois Marais

Respondent

Coachcor SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination After Opposed Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was unlawfully dispossessed of possession and control over the seventh respondent and its business.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were entitled to interfere with the management and business activities of the seventh respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a spoliation order restoring possession and control.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had acquired the shares and control of the seventh respondent pursuant to a valid deed of sale, and that possession and management of the business were handed over to the applicant. The first respondent unlawfully dispossessed the applicant by taking control of the business and assets without a valid court order or recourse to arbitration, as required by the agreement. The respondents' denial of the applicant's control was not supported by the facts, including correspondence and conduct after the sale. The court held that the applicant was entitled to a spoliation order restoring possession and control, as the respondents' actions amounted to illicit...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Spoliation proven. Urgent relief and restoration of possession ordered.

Orders

  • Noncompliance with the rules of court regarding service and time limits is condoned; the matter is dealt with on an urgent basis.
  • The first to fifth respondents are ordered to forthwith and with immediate effect restore the applicant's possession and control over and in the seventh respondent and its business and assets.