Turner and Another v Ntintelo and Another (A 248/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 51 (8 March 2023)

Turner and Another v Ntintelo and Another (A 248/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 51 (8 March 2023)

The court found that the respondents were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the right to use water and electricity at their residence on the farm, and that Mr Turner unlawfully deprived them of these rights by disconnecting the supply. The evidence, including corroboration by a police officer, was uncontroverted and the appellants' version was found to be inherently improbable and unsupported by objective facts. The court held that the spoliation remedy was correctly granted, as the respondents' rights to water and electricity were incidents of their occupation protected under ESTA, not mere personal or contractual rights. The reinstatement application and revival of the interim...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 51
Parties
Appellant: Francois Turner; Appellant: Turner Plant & Harvest CC; Respondent: Nobhake Christine Ntintelo; Respondent: Victor Macingwane
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2023
Case Number
A 248/22
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Spoliation Order From Hopefield Magistrates Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against appellants. Appellants ordered to restore water and electricity supply within five days.
Judges
Lekhuleni JD, Adams M
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Right to Water, Right to Dignity, Specific Performance, Rule 31 Magistrates Court
Civil Procedure Land and Property Constitutional Law Mandament Van Spolie Extension of Security of Tenure Act Right to Water Right to Dignity Specific Performance +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francois Turner

Appellant

Turner Plant & Harvest CC

Appellant

Nobhake Christine Ntintelo

Respondent

Victor Macingwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Spoliation Order From Hopefield Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants spoliated the respondents by cutting off water and electricity supply to their house despite an alleged dispute of fact.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo granted an order of specific performance requiring the appellants to repair damaged infrastructure.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo was correct in considering the reinstatement application in terms of amended rule 31(2)(a)(ii) of the Magistrates Court Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the right to use water and electricity at their residence on the farm, and that Mr Turner unlawfully deprived them of these rights by disconnecting the supply. The evidence, including corroboration by a police officer, was uncontroverted and the appellants' version was found to be inherently improbable and unsupported by objective facts. The court held that the spoliation remedy was correctly granted, as the respondents' rights to water and electricity were incidents of their occupation protected under ESTA, not mere personal or contractual rights. The reinstatement application and revival of the interim...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against appellants. Appellants ordered to restore water and electricity supply within five days.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of counsel.