Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Bisshoff and Others (M66/16) [2016] ZANWHC 22 (23 May 2016)

Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Bisshoff and Others (M66/16) [2016] ZANWHC 22 (23 May 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the crops, as there was no evidence that it had planted the maize and the contractual provisions did not entitle it to harvest crops it did not plant. The requirements for interim or permanent relief were not met due to factual disputes and lack of entitlement. Furthermore, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 18 of the Superior Courts Act for leave to execute the mandament van spolie order pending appeal, as the respondents would suffer irreparable harm if the applicant harvested crops to which it was not entitled. The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant...

Citation
[2016] ZANWHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Abraham Paulus Bisshoff; Respondent: Abraham Paulus Bisshoff N.O.; Respondent: Rietvlug Landgoed (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: David Eduard Bisshoff; Respondent: David Eduard Bisshoff N.O.
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2016
Case Number
M66/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Execute Pending Appeal; Application for Interim and Permanent Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale; costs of previous abortive application also awarded against the applicant.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Section 18 Superior Courts Act, Suspensive Condition, Lease Agreement, Interim Interdict
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Section 18 Superior Courts Act Suspensive Condition Lease Agreement Interim 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Welbeplan Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Abraham Paulus Bisshoff

Respondent

Abraham Paulus Bisshoff N.O.

Respondent

Rietvlug Landgoed (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

David Eduard Bisshoff

Respondent

David Eduard Bisshoff N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Execute Pending Appeal; Application for Interim and Permanent Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to execute the mandament van spolie order pending the outcome of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to harvest crops under the alleged lease agreements.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 18 of the Superior Courts Act for leave to execute are met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the crops, as there was no evidence that it had planted the maize and the contractual provisions did not entitle it to harvest crops it did not plant. The requirements for interim or permanent relief were not met due to factual disputes and lack of entitlement. Furthermore, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 18 of the Superior Courts Act for leave to execute the mandament van spolie order pending appeal, as the respondents would suffer irreparable harm if the applicant harvested crops to which it was not entitled. The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale; costs of previous abortive application also awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant's failure to comply with the formalities and Rules of Court is condoned.
  • The application is dismissed with costs on a scale as between attorney and client.