Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Chokoe and Others v MEC for Human Settlements and Others (031031/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1237 (26 November 2024)
The court held that the municipality could not demolish or evict without a court order, found spoliation on the papers, and ordered reconstruction of the applicants’ structures.
Dumalisile v Gushman (Reasons) (4437/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 87 (31 October 2024)
The court found that the applicant, as executor, had placed Ms. Khululwa Gubevu in possession of the property and that this possession was unlawfully disturbed by the respondent and others on 5 October 2024. The respondent's claim to ownership and challenge to the applicant's locus standi were rejected, as the law recognizes the executor's quasi-possession and fiduciary duty to protect estate assets. The defence of counter-spoliation was dismissed as it does not exist independently of spoliation and cannot justify continued unlawful deprivation. The court held that the only relevant inquiry i…
Source excerpt
Unlawful Invaders of Portion 0 of the Township Fleurhof Ext 21 Erven 2887, 1946, 2948, 2953, 3004 v Fleurhof Ext 2 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/064315) [2024] ZAGPJHC 907 (9 September 2024)
High Court reconsidered and set aside an ex parte interdict against alleged occupiers, dismissed the non-joinder point, and struck off a mandamus counter-application.
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Bantham and Others (128720/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 809 (16 August 2024)
Leave to appeal was dismissed in a spoliation matter after the City unlawfully demolished informal dwellings without a court order.
Mabusela and Others v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2024/063770) [2024] ZAGPJHC 701 (22 July 2024)
The court found that the First Respondent's actions in removing the Applicants and destroying or confiscating their shelters and possessions were unlawful, as they were not supported by a court order and did not fall within the narrow defence of counter-spoliation. The Respondent was neither the owner of the land nor acting with the owner's authority, and its conduct exceeded what is permissible under law. The Applicants, having established peaceful possession, were entitled to protection under the PIE Act and the spoliation remedy. The court declined to grant a wide-ranging restoratory order…
Source excerpt
Citrusdal Beleggings (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water and Sanitation (17606 / 2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 180 (12 July 2024)
The High Court held that the applicant was not entitled to spoliation relief after lawful expropriation and compensation, and dismissed the application with costs.
City of Cape Town v South African Human Rights Commission and Others (1337/2022; 368/2023) [2024] ZASCA 110; 2024 (5) SA 368 (SCA) (10 July 2024)
The SCA held that counter-spoliation remains lawful but must be done instanter. The City of Cape Town acted too late when demolishing occupied structures.
Endtime Christian Association (PE Tabernacle) v Boesak and Others (1530/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 60 (3 October 2023)
The court found that the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the church premises when it was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents, satisfying the requirements for a mandament van spolie. The respondents' defence of counter-spoliation failed because their repossession occurred four days after the applicant's act of spoliation and was not instanter, thus constituting a new act of spoliation. The applicant's initial self-help in executing the court order was also unlawful, but this did not avail the respondents as a defence. The requirements for a final interdict were met…
Source excerpt
Leader Trailer Bodies (Pty) Ltd v Naude and Another (99/2023) [2023] ZANCHC 37 (9 February 2023)
Urgent spoliation relief was granted to restore a trailer removed from an agent’s premises, with the court rejecting the respondents’ counter-spoliation defence.
Smith and Others v Stellenbosch Municipality and Others (18381/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 134 (11 July 2022)
The court held that the Stellenbosch Municipality's decision to accept the donation of land from the Trust was an exercise of executive power, not administrative action, and therefore not subject to review under PAJA. There was no statutory or constitutional requirement for public consultation prior to accepting the donation, and the council meeting was properly held in committee. The Trust's resolution to donate the land was invalid as it was adopted without proper notice to all trustees, lacked quorum, and was not authorised by the Master as required by the Trust Property Control Act and th…
Source excerpt
Explore more
