Webtrade INV No 45 (Pty) Ltd and Other v Andries Van Der Schyff en Seun (Pty) Ltd t/a Complete Construction (589/06) [2007] ZASCA 104; [2007] SCA 104 (RSA) (17 September 2007)

Webtrade INV No 45 (Pty) Ltd and Other v Andries Van Der Schyff en Seun (Pty) Ltd t/a Complete Construction (589/06) [2007] ZASCA 104; [2007] SCA 104 (RSA) (17 September 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the provisions of PIE do not apply to the circumstances where the owner of land takes possession from a builder exercising a builder's lien. The definition of 'unlawful occupier' in PIE is disjunctive and excludes owners acting with their own consent. The Act is intended to protect vulnerable, landless persons, not owners of property. The respondent, while exercising a builder's lien, was unlawfully dispossessed by the appellants, and the mandament van spolie was the appropriate remedy to restore possession. The court below was correct in restoring possession to the respondent and rejecting the appellants' reliance on PIE.

Citation
[2007] SCA 104 (RSA)
Parties
Appellant: Webtrade INV No 45 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Cheralee Saby; Respondent: Andries Van Der Schyff en Seuns (Pty) Ltd t/a Complete Construction
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2007
Case Number
589/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, payable jointly and severally by the first and third appellants.
Judges
Navsa, Brand, Lewis, Ponnan, Malan
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Builder Lien, Unlawful Occupation, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Restoration of Possession
Land and Property Civil Procedure Mandament Van Spolie Builder Lien Unlawful Occupation Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Webtrade INV No 45 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Cheralee Saby

Appellant

Andries Van Der Schyff en Seuns (Pty) Ltd t/a Complete Construction

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) apply to owners reclaiming possession from a builder exercising a lien?
  2. 2 Were the appellants entitled to invoke PIE to resist restoration of possession to the respondent?
  3. 3 Was the respondent unlawfully dispossessed of possession while exercising a builder's lien?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the provisions of PIE do not apply to the circumstances where the owner of land takes possession from a builder exercising a builder's lien. The definition of 'unlawful occupier' in PIE is disjunctive and excludes owners acting with their own consent. The Act is intended to protect vulnerable, landless persons, not owners of property. The respondent, while exercising a builder's lien, was unlawfully dispossessed by the appellants, and the mandament van spolie was the appropriate remedy to restore possession. The court below was correct in restoring possession to the respondent and rejecting the appellants' reliance on PIE.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, payable jointly and severally by the first and third appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to be paid by the first and third appellants jointly and severally.