Tshepe and Another v S Naraghi Construction CC (CIV APP HC 7/10) [2011] ZANWHC 31 (30 June 2011)

Tshepe and Another v S Naraghi Construction CC (CIV APP HC 7/10) [2011] ZANWHC 31 (30 June 2011)

The court found that the respondent, S Naraghi Construction CC, was the contracting party as evidenced by multiple documents signed in a representative capacity and bearing the close corporation's details. The respondent maintained actual possession of the site through ongoing construction activities, erection and re-erection of fences, and storage of equipment. The appellants' actions in removing the respondent's property and fencing constituted unlawful dispossession. The court distinguished the present facts from authorities cited by the appellants, noting that possession was not abandoned and physical control was continuously asserted. The respondent met the requirements for mandament...

Citation
[2011] ZANWHC 31
Parties
Appellant: Tsholofelo Amos Jackie Tshepe; Appellant: Gadimang Gloria Tshepe; Respondent: S Naraghi Construction CC
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2011
Case Number
CIV APP HC 7/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hendricks, Kgoele, Gutta
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Locus Standi, Possession, Spoliation Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Locus Standi Possession Spoliation Order

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsholofelo Amos Jackie Tshepe

Appellant

Gadimang Gloria Tshepe

Appellant

S Naraghi Construction CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had locus standi to bring the spoliation application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property at the time of alleged spoliation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was unlawfully dispossessed by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, S Naraghi Construction CC, was the contracting party as evidenced by multiple documents signed in a representative capacity and bearing the close corporation's details. The respondent maintained actual possession of the site through ongoing construction activities, erection and re-erection of fences, and storage of equipment. The appellants' actions in removing the respondent's property and fencing constituted unlawful dispossession. The court distinguished the present facts from authorities cited by the appellants, noting that possession was not abandoned and physical control was continuously asserted. The respondent met the requirements for mandament...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.