Williams and Others v Dykrus (Pty) Limited (650/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 13 (24 February 2023)

Williams and Others v Dykrus (Pty) Limited (650/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 13 (24 February 2023)

The applicants were found to have been spoliated, as they were deprived of their statutory right to water supply by the respondent's unilateral disconnection. However, the relief sought was final rather than interim, and the court had previously declared the water connection unlawful and ordered its removal. Restoration of the unlawful connection would amount to authorising an illegality, which the court cannot do. The Mandament van Spolie is not available to restore an unlawful situation, and the application must fail on this ground. The matter was urgent, but the applicants are not entitled to the relief sought under spoliation.

Citation
[2023] ZAMPMBHC 13
Parties
Applicant: Christopher John Williams; Applicant: Kirsten Walker; Applicant: Sharon Dawn Hammond N.O.; Applicant: Millicent Audrey Watson; Respondent: Dykrus (Pty) Limited
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2023
Case Number
650/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Spoliation Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Sibuyi
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Water Rights, Unlawful Infringement, Urgent Application, Statutory Rights
Civil Procedure Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Water Rights Unlawful Infringement Urgent Application Statutory Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Williams

Applicant

Kirsten Walker

Applicant

Sharon Dawn Hammond N.O.

Applicant

Millicent Audrey Watson

Applicant

Dykrus (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Spoliation Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were spoliated by the respondent's disconnection of the water supply.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to spoliation relief under the Mandament van Spolie.
  3. 3 Whether the application was sufficiently urgent to warrant its launch.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were found to have been spoliated, as they were deprived of their statutory right to water supply by the respondent's unilateral disconnection. However, the relief sought was final rather than interim, and the court had previously declared the water connection unlawful and ordered its removal. Restoration of the unlawful connection would amount to authorising an illegality, which the court cannot do. The Mandament van Spolie is not available to restore an unlawful situation, and the application must fail on this ground. The matter was urgent, but the applicants are not entitled to the relief sought under spoliation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The matter is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) and condonation for non-compliance with prescribed forms and time limits is granted.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.