South Africa Case Law

Kruger N.O v M.R.M and Another (M432/2023)

Kruger N.O v M.R.M and Another (M432/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 45 (21 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M432/2023

Judge

FMM Reid

The applicant, as court-appointed liquidator, has a clear right to access and dispose of the joint estate's assets, including the immovable properties. The 1st respondent's unilateral set-off claim regarding the pension interest does not affect the applicant's mandate or the execution of the divorce order. The requirements for a final interdict—clear right, reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, and lack of alternative remedy—have all been satisfied. The 1st respondent's opposition is based on a disputed calculation of the joint estate's value, which is not before this Court for determi…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Liquidation Of Joint Estate
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Set Off
• Pension Interest In Divorce
• Access To Property

New Invest 197 (Pty) Limited and Another v Moss (2206/2023)

New Invest 197 (Pty) Limited and Another v Moss (2206/2023) [2024] ZAECELLC 48 (1 October 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

2206/2023

Judge

M Makaula

The court ordered a neighbour to restore access, repair road damage, rehabilitate unlawful earthworks, and pay costs after finding interference with property and environment.

• Unlawful Earthworks
• Environmental Rehabilitation
• Access To Property
• Boundary Dispute
• Interdict
• National Environmental Management Act

Wessels v Roux (2022-044118)

Wessels v Roux (2022-044118) [2024] ZAGPJHC 8 (5 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-044118

Judge

S Yacoob

The High Court held that a co-owner was entitled to reasonable, limited access to the property, but not unfettered access or a separate accounting order.

• Co Ownership
• Access To Property
• Mandatory Interdict
• Statement And Debatement Of Account
• Co-ownership
• Property-access

Oosthuizen N.O and Another v Kotze (UM171/2023)

Oosthuizen N.O and Another v Kotze (UM171/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 179 (26 September 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM171/2023

Judge

Petersen

The court confirmed a rule nisi granting trustees access to farm property, finding urgency and statutory fire-prevention duties justified the interim relief.

• Urgent Interdict
• Access To Property
• Trust Ownership
• National Veld And Forest Fire Act
• Locus Standi
• Interim Relief

Barzani 53 (Pty) Ltd v Body Corporate Witfield Ridge (2022/9286)

Barzani 53 (Pty) Ltd v Body Corporate Witfield Ridge (2022/9286) [2022] ZAGPJHC 146 (14 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/9286

Judge

Moorcroft

Urgent spoliation application dismissed where the applicant failed to prove the respondent caused the water cutoff and was still allowed access via an alternative gate.

• Spoliation
• Sectional Titles Act
• Urgent Interdict
• Access To Property
• Sectional-titles
• Urgent-applications

Tembe v Tember (EL1207/2021)

Tembe v Tember (EL1207/2021) [2021] ZAECBHC 15 (17 September 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

EL1207/2021

Judge

N G Beshe

The High Court partly suspended a domestic violence protection order pending appeal and allowed the applicant limited access to the jointly owned home.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Protection Order
• Suspension Of Execution
• Interdict
• Access To Property
• Parental Rights

Jaffit and Another v Bellingan and Another (33526/2018)

Jaffit and Another v Bellingan and Another (33526/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 525 (13 September 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

33526/2018

Judge

Wright

The court found that the applicants had been deprived of their established method of access to their property via the remotely controlled gate, which was powered by electricity supplied from the first respondent's property. The first respondent unilaterally removed the motor and cut off the electricity supply without a court order, thereby interfering with the applicants' possession and use of the property. The court held that the applicants had established the requirements for spoliation relief, namely, peaceful and undisturbed possession and unlawful deprivation. The underlying disputes reg…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation
• Access To Property
• Urgent Interdict

Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd v Assmang Ltd and Another (2406/2016)

Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd v Assmang Ltd and Another (2406/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 39 (2 December 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2406/2016

Judge

Williams

The court restored a coal company’s access to a prospecting property, holding that late payment under an earlier order did not justify denial of access.

• Interim Interdict
• Access To Property
• Breach Of Contract
• Prospecting Rights
• Urgent Application
• Interim-interdict

Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd v Assmang Ltd and Another (2406/2016)

Liciano Coal (Pty) Ltd v Assmang Ltd and Another (2406/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 36 (2 December 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2406/2016

Judge

Williams

The High Court ordered Assmang to restore Liciano Coal’s access to Farm Doornfontein 446 and barred it from blocking access, finding no valid basis for refusal.

• Interdict
• Access To Property
• Breach Of Contract
• Prospecting Rights
• Access-to-property
• Breach-of-contract

C-Rock Mining (Pty) Ltd v Rockwell Resources RSA (Pty) Ltd and Others (2400/2016)

C-Rock Mining (Pty) Ltd v Rockwell Resources RSA (Pty) Ltd and Others (2400/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 74 (29 November 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2400/2016

Judge

Olivier J

The High Court dismissed a spoliation application over mining sites, plant, equipment and access, finding no proven unlawful dispossession and costs against the applicant.

• Mandement Van Spolie
• Possession
• Spoliation Remedy
• Mining Equipment
• Access To Property
• Mandament-van-spolie