Shelving Man (Pty) Ltd v Dawood and Others (3309/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 42; [2015] 3 All SA 243 (KZD) (20 May 2015)

Shelving Man (Pty) Ltd v Dawood and Others (3309/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 42; [2015] 3 All SA 243 (KZD) (20 May 2015)

The court found that the applicant was in possession of the business and premises at the relevant time and was wrongfully deprived of possession by the first respondent and others acting in concert. The respondent's version that the handover was voluntary was rejected as so far-fetched and untenable that it could not be accepted on the papers. The conduct of arriving en masse and intimidating the applicant's director constituted unlawful dispossession. The requirements for a spoliation order were met, and the applicant was entitled to restoration of possession without regard to the merits of any underlying dispute.

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Shelving Man (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sayed Dawood; Respondent: Imraan Adam; Respondent: Ayub Vally
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2015
Case Number
3309/2015
Procedural Posture
Spoliation Application / Final Relief
Outcome
Application granted; spoliation order issued in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Jeffrey
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Unlawful Dispossession, Self Help, Restoration of Possession
Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Unlawful Dispossession Self Help Restoration of Possession

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shelving Man (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sayed Dawood

Respondent

Imraan Adam

Respondent

Ayub Vally

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Spoliation Application / Final Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in possession of the business and business premises at the relevant time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was wrongfully deprived of possession by the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's version of voluntary handover is so far-fetched as to be rejected on the papers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was in possession of the business and premises at the relevant time and was wrongfully deprived of possession by the first respondent and others acting in concert. The respondent's version that the handover was voluntary was rejected as so far-fetched and untenable that it could not be accepted on the papers. The conduct of arriving en masse and intimidating the applicant's director constituted unlawful dispossession. The requirements for a spoliation order were met, and the applicant was entitled to restoration of possession without regard to the merits of any underlying dispute.

Court Disposition

Application granted; spoliation order issued in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all persons acting through or for the first respondent are directed to forthwith restore possession to the applicant of its business and business premises at Shelving Man (Pty) Ltd, 505/507 Umgeni Road, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal.
  • If the first respondent fails or refuses to comply, the Sheriff is authorized to give immediate effect to the restoration order.