Wagendrift Safaries (Pty) Ltd v Shelembe and Another (LCC22/2010) [2010] ZALCC 8 (14 April 2010)

Wagendrift Safaries (Pty) Ltd v Shelembe and Another (LCC22/2010) [2010] ZALCC 8 (14 April 2010)

The court found that the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the farm Warmbad under a valid lease agreement, which had not been terminated. The respondents did not deny the applicant's possession or raise admissible defences such as impossibility of restoration or lapse of time. The respondents' entry, breaking of the lock, and erection of structures constituted unlawful deprivation of possession, as these acts were performed without the applicant's consent and required stealth. The respondents' right to visit ancestral graves did not entitle them to erect structures or occupy the property without proper arrangements and consent. The requirements for a spoliation order...

Citation
[2010] ZALCC 8
Parties
Applicant: Wagendrift Safaries (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: M P Shelembe; Respondent: The Shelembe Community
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2010
Case Number
LCC22/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order With Reasons Delivered
Outcome
Application granted. Spoliation order issued in favour of the applicant.
Judges
S Mia
Legal Topics
Spoliation Order, Possession, Lease Agreement, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Land Claims, Interdict
Land and Property Civil Procedure Spoliation Order Possession Lease Agreement Extension of Security of Tenure Act Land Claims Interdict

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

Wagendrift Safaries (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

M P Shelembe

Respondent

The Shelembe Community

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Order With Reasons Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the farm Warmbad.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents deprived the applicant of possession forcibly or wrongfully and against its consent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' entry and erection of structures constituted a land invasion justifying a spoliation order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the farm Warmbad under a valid lease agreement, which had not been terminated. The respondents did not deny the applicant's possession or raise admissible defences such as impossibility of restoration or lapse of time. The respondents' entry, breaking of the lock, and erection of structures constituted unlawful deprivation of possession, as these acts were performed without the applicant's consent and required stealth. The respondents' right to visit ancestral graves did not entitle them to erect structures or occupy the property without proper arrangements and consent. The requirements for a spoliation order...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Spoliation order issued in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to forthwith remove the structures erected on the farm Warmbad and to vacate the farm Warmbad.
  • The respondents are interdicted and restrained from entering the farm Warmbad.