Sable Place Properties 106 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Visa Security Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (081761/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 610 (24 June 2025)

Sable Place Properties 106 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Visa Security Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (081761/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 610 (24 June 2025)

The first respondent failed to prove the existence of a tacit contract with the applicants or their agents. There is no objective evidence of consensus or agreement on the alleged terms, and correspondence does not support a fixed-term contract. The applicants, having awarded the security contract to Fidelity after a tender process, have a clear right to exclusive possession and control of their property. The first respondent's refusal to vacate and interference with the new security provider created urgency and justified the grant of interdictory relief. The applicants satisfied the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right, injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended,...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 610
Parties
Applicant: Sable Place Properties 106 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Redefine Properties Ltd; Applicant: Tadvest Commercial (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Visa Security Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2025
Case Number
081761/2025
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted; first respondent ordered to vacate premises and restrained from further interference; costs awarded on scale C against first respondent.
Judges
Minnaar
Legal Topics
Interdict, Contractual Entitlement, Urgent Relief, Tacit Contract, Security Services, Costs Scale
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interdict Contractual Entitlement Urgent Relief Tacit Contract Security Services Costs Scale

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sable Place Properties 106 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Redefine Properties Ltd

Applicant

Tadvest Commercial (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Visa Security Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is entitled to remain on the applicants' premises and render security services without a contract.
  2. 2 Whether a tacit contract exists between the first respondent and the applicants or their agents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent interdictory relief to remove the first respondent and restrain further interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent failed to prove the existence of a tacit contract with the applicants or their agents. There is no objective evidence of consensus or agreement on the alleged terms, and correspondence does not support a fixed-term contract. The applicants, having awarded the security contract to Fidelity after a tender process, have a clear right to exclusive possession and control of their property. The first respondent's refusal to vacate and interference with the new security provider created urgency and justified the grant of interdictory relief. The applicants satisfied the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right, injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended,...

Court Disposition

Application granted; first respondent ordered to vacate premises and restrained from further interference; costs awarded on scale C against first respondent.

Orders

  • Non-compliance with the Rules of court regarding time frames and service is condoned; matter heard as urgent.
  • The first respondent and any persons acting through it are ordered to forthwith vacate the applicants’ property at Hertford Office Park, Sandton, Gauteng.