Viera v Steenkamp and Another (22732/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 910 (31 March 2017)

Viera v Steenkamp and Another (22732/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 910 (31 March 2017)

The court found that the applicant had not set out in his papers the nature of the right he sought to protect, nor had he pleaded a case for the mandament van spolie. The argument for spoliation was raised for the first time from the bar and was not supported by the founding affidavit or annexures. The applicant failed to establish a clear right or basis for the relief sought, and the case was not made out with the required particularity. As a result, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 910
Parties
Applicant: Joa Da Silva Viera; Respondent: Stephanus Jan Gabriel Steenkamp; Respondent: City of Tshwane Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Case Number
22732/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Before the High Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hughes
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Urgent Interdict, Locus Standi, Management Agreement, Special Power of Attorney
Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Urgent Interdict Locus Standi Management Agreement Special Power of Attorney

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joa Da Silva Viera

Applicant

Stephanus Jan Gabriel Steenkamp

Respondent

City of Tshwane Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a clear right to the relief sought under the mandament van spolie.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's case for urgent relief was properly set out in the papers.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's locus standi and contractual rights justified the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not set out in his papers the nature of the right he sought to protect, nor had he pleaded a case for the mandament van spolie. The argument for spoliation was raised for the first time from the bar and was not supported by the founding affidavit or annexures. The applicant failed to establish a clear right or basis for the relief sought, and the case was not made out with the required particularity. As a result, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.