Verenigende Gereformeerde Kerk in Suider-Afrika (The Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa alias Uniting Church of SA) v Malebo and Another (A560/2003) [2005] ZAFSHC 32 (3 March 2005)
The court held that the appellant's application did not seek restoration of possession but rather an interdict prohibiting entry, disruption, and intimidation at the church premises. As such, the counter-application by the respondents, which sought relief based on spoliation principles, was legally unsustainable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] ZAFSHC 32
- Parties
- Appellant: Verenigende Gereformeerde Kerk in Suider-Afrika (The Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa alias Uniting Church of SA); Respondent: Samuel Malebo; Respondent: Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk in Afrika (Seeisoville)
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- A560/2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granted on Counter Application
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- G. Van Coppenhagen, G.A. Hattingh, S.P.B. Hancke
- Legal Topics
- Spoliation, Interdict, Possession Dispute, Church Property, Counter Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Verenigende Gereformeerde Kerk in Suider-Afrika (The Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa alias Uniting Church of SA)
Appellant
Samuel Malebo
Respondent
Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk in Afrika (Seeisoville)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granted on Counter Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order granted on the counter-application was legally sustainable as a spoliation application.
- 2 Whether the respondents' counter-application could be entertained in the absence of a claim for restoration of possession.
- 3 Whether the appellant's application constituted a spoliation claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant's application did not seek restoration of possession but rather an interdict prohibiting entry, disruption, and intimidation at the church premises. As such, the counter-application by the respondents, which sought relief based on spoliation principles, was legally unsustainable because it relied on the merits of possession rather than the restoration thereof. The respondents were not required to prepare arguments or evidence regarding restoration of possession, and the appellant could not rely on factual allegations in the respondents' affidavits that did not answer the relief actually sought. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs, as the order...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
66 paragraphs
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE VRYSTAATSE PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Appèl Nr. : A560/2003
In die saak tussen:
DIE VERENIGENDE GEREFORMEERDE APPELLANT
KERK IN SUIDER-AFRIKA
(THE UNITING REFORMED CHURCH IN
SOUTHERN AFRICA ALIAS UNITING
CHURCH OF SA)
en
SAMUEL MALEBO 1STE RESPONDENT
DIE NEDERDUITSE GEREFORMEERDE 2DE RESPONDENT
KERK IN AFRIKA (SEEISOVILLE)
CORAM: HATTINGH R et HANCKE R et VAN COPPENHAGEN R
AANGEHOOR OP: 14 FEBRUARIE 2005
UITSPRAAK: VAN COPPENHAGEN R
GELEWER OP: 3 MAART 2005
[1] Op 28 Julie 2003 het appellant ex parte op ân dringende basis aansoek gedoen vir die volgende bevel:
â1. Condonation of non-compliance of the rule of this Honourable Court as well as the service of the processes.
2. That the matter be heard as a matter of urgency.
3. That the Respondents be prohibited and/or barred from entering applicantâs premises to wit 1243 Mahabane Street Seisoville Kroonstad Free State Province.
4. That the respondents be prohibited from interrupting and/or causing nonsense and/or chaos and/or disturbance at applicantâs premises while the church service and/or any service is still on.
5. That the respondents be prohibited from intimating and/or threatening to assault the applicant and/or of its congregates.
6. That the notice of this order be brought to respondentâs attention by serving same at their respective addresses and affixing same at the gate of the applicant.
7. That this order shall service as an interim order and respondents to appear before Honourable Court on the 28th July 2003 at 9:00 to show cause why the order should not be made final on the return date to wit 14th August 2003 at 9:00.
8. That the respondent be ordered to pay costs of this application.â
Die bevel, in ietwat meer elegante taal, was op voormelde basis verleen.
[2] Die feite-grondslag waarop appellant die dringende bevel met tussentydse werking gekry het, kan slegs in die funderende verklaring gevind word en dan in besonder wat hierdie appèl betref op grond van die volgende bewerings:
â7. On or about last week the 1st Respondent and Others occupied the Applicantâs premises while the service was still continuing and caused massive disruption.
8. The Respondents were carrying sticks, drums and unknown objects to cause chaos and disruption.
9. I tried to speak to Samuel Malebo who purported to be a leader of the said group but he refused and indicated that he will cause physical harm if I dare coming near him,
10. As they entered the church building with attitude of hungry vultures and/or impis the elderly women and children screamed and some even fainted due to fear and the imminent attack displayed by the Respondents.
11. I summoned the police to help but the situation was so tense that police advised us to leave so that no further threats or injuries to be inflicted on us.
17. I confirm that I instructed Mr. Serekego to lodge urgent application to interdict the Respondents for causing disruption of church service and to pray in peaceful manner as guaranteed under the Constitution of this land.
24. I humbly beseech the Honourable Court to grant me the prayers mentioned in my notice of motion and further there is no other remedy left except this application as I fear that on the 27th July 2003 the Respondents will be coming to disrupt the service.â
[3] Eerste respondent het die aansoek opponeer en in besonder die bewerings in voormelde paragrawe gemaak, is ten sterkste ontken.
Tweede respondent het ewe-eens die aansoek opponeer en ân teenaansoek met die volgende bepalings aangevra:
â1.4.1 Dat die applikant gehoor en uitvoering gee aan die beslissing van die Hoogste Hof van Appèl in saaknommer 536/1996 in die Hoogste Hof van Appèl by name die beslissing in NEDERDUITSE GEREFORMEERDE KERK IN AFRIKA (OVS) v VERENIGENDE GEREFORMEERDE KERK IN SUIDER-AFRIKA, [1998] ZASCA 111; 1999 (2) SA 156 (HHA).
Dat die applikant die onroerende eiendom bestaande uit die perseel met kerkgebou en ander verbeterings geleë te Erf 1243, Seeisoville, Kroonstad onmiddellik ontruim en tot beskikking van die tweede respondent stel.
Dat die applikant die tweede respondent se roerende goed bestaande uit kerklike boeke, registers, meublement, nagmaalgerei en ander kerktoerusting asook fondse, welke respondent vir sy kerkaktiwiteite tot en met November 1995 gebruik was, onmiddellik aan tweede respondent lewer.
Dat die balju van hierdie Agbare Hof gemagtig word om, indien applikant sou versuim om te voldoen aan die bevele in paragrawe 1.4.2 en 1.4.3 hierbo vermeld, sodanige stappe te doen as wat redelikerwys nodig sou wees om daardie bevele uit te voer.
Dat die Balju gemagtig word om die hulp van die SUID-AFRIKAANSE POLISIEDIENS in te roep in sover as wat dit na sy mening nodig sou wees om die bevel in paragraaf 1.4.4 vermeld, uit te voer.
Koste van die teenaansoek.â
[4] Die hof a quo het op 25 September 2003 die bevel nisi ter syde gestel en ân bevel ooreenkomstig die teenaansoek verleen.
Die tersydestelling van die bevel nisi is nie die onderwerp van hierdie appèl nie; die verlening van die bevel ooreenkomstig die teenaansoek wel.
[5] Op appèl was die verleende bevel op slegs een grond aangeveg, naamlik dat dit as teenaansoek op ân spoliasie aansoek regtens onhoudbaar is.
[6] Dit is geykte reg dat ân verweer op die meriete van reg op besit nie in spoliasie aansoeke toelaatbaar is nie.
Die bevel deur appellant aangevra, hierbo aangehaal, versoek nie besitsherstel van goedere die besit waarvan versteur is nie, maar ân verbod op betreding van sekere persele, die onderbreking van kerkaktiwiteite op ân spesifieke perseel en intimidasie en dreigemente om aan te rand.
Geen spoliasie is in die bevel deur appellant aangevra dus ter sprake nie.
[7] Dit was dus gevolglik nie vir respondente nodig om hulle voor te berei op argumente en bewerings dat hulle as spoliators besit moet herstel nie, en nog minder kan appellant op feite bewerings in respondente se verklarings wat nie ân antwoord is op feite bewerings vir die aangevraagde regshulp is nie, steun. Vergelyk ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSVAAL, AND OTHERS v THELETSANE AND OTHERS [1990] ZASCA 156; 1991 (2) SA 192 te 197.
[8] Die voorafgaande gevolgtrekking ontneem die appèl van enige meriete en moet die onderstaande bevel volg:
Die appèl word afgewys met koste.
_______________________
G. VAN COPPENHAGEN, R
Ek stem saam.
________________
G.A. HATTINGH, R
S.P.B. HANCKE, R
Namens die appellant: Adv. C. Ploos van Amstel SC
In opdrag van:
McIntyre & Van der Post
BLOEMFONTEIN
Namens die respondente: Adv. J.P. de Bruyn SC
In opdrag van:
Naudes
/sp