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
Balhabou and Others v Blamey and Others (Reasons) (2954/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 54 (12 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent spoliation application, finding lis pendens, lack of urgency for the first applicant, and unresolved disputes of fact.
Seema v Phukubye and Others (2024/025816) [2024] ZAGPJHC 362 (22 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent spoliation application, finding proper service under PIE, no unlawful deprivation of possession, and awarding attorney-and-client costs.
Lanemode (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (006300/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 255 (22 March 2023)
The court held that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12). The billboards had already been removed, and the respondent justified the removal on grounds of public safety. The applicant was not without remedy, as it could pay the necessary fine, retrieve its billboards, and pursue damages through ordinary proceedings. The harm alleged by the applicant was financial in nature, which, according to established legal principles, does not justify urgent relief. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of urgency.
Source excerpt
Botes Auto CC v Bararage Auto Sales (CC) and Others (2778/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 144 (17 August 2020)
The court found that the applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession of the business premises by the respondents, who closed the premises, handed the keys to the landlord, and excluded the applicant from access. The respondents failed to follow due process and resorted to self-help. The lease agreement had not been validly terminated, as cancellation required written notice, which was not provided. The applicant demonstrated that it was in possession and was unlawfully dispossessed. The respondents' defences were rejected as lacking substance, and the requirements for a mandament van spol…
Source excerpt
KBV Group (Pty) Ltd v Univest Mining Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (23648/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 244 (23 June 2020)
Urgent spoliation application granted after respondents took over a mining operation and excluded KBV from the property.
Walsh and Another v Rijks Cellar (Pty) Ltd (A305/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 25 (27 February 2018)
The court held that any procedural defect arising from the ex parte interim order was cured when the appellants anticipated the return day and argued the matter on the founding papers. The Magistrate properly exercised discretion regarding urgency, given the ongoing drought and imminent storm. The respondent established possession or quasi-possession of the pipeline, pump, and pump house under both the servitude agreement and the Water Act, entitling it to spoliatory relief. The mandement van spolie is available to protect such rights, and the respondent was unlawfully deprived of access by t…
Source excerpt
C-Rock Mining (Pty) Ltd v Rockwell Resources RSA (Pty) Ltd and Others (2400/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 74 (29 November 2016)
The High Court dismissed a spoliation application over mining sites, plant, equipment and access, finding no proven unlawful dispossession and costs against the applicant.
Minister of Land Affairs v Gqiba and Another (847/2006) [2008] ZAECHC 176 (21 October 2008)
The court held that the respondents failed to establish a clear right to the property or lawful possession thereof. The evidence did not support ownership or lawful occupation, and at best, the respondents were in unlawful possession. Demarcation activities did not amount to spoliation, as there was no deprivation of possession, only a temporary disturbance. The PIE Act does not grant squatters a clear right to an interdict unless eviction is imminent, and there was no evidence that the legal requirements for eviction would be flouted. Accordingly, the respondents were not entitled to the pro…
Source excerpt
First Rand Ltd. t/a Rand Merchant Bank and Another v Scholtz NO and Others (373/06) [2006] ZASCA 99; [2006] SCA 98 (RSA); 2008 (2) SA 503 (SCA) ; [2007] 1 All SA 436 (SCA) (9 September 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were not dispossessed of statutory water rights or quasi possessio thereof, but only of a contractual right to the conveyance of water through the pipeline, which expired on 31 December 2004. The right to use the pipeline was not an incident of possession or control of their properties but arose from contract. The mandement van spolie does not protect mere contractual rights, and the respondents' remedy lay in contract, not spoliation. Accordingly, the High Court's order was set aside and the application dismissed.
Source excerpt
Sebokolodi v Sebokolodi and Others (126/04) [2004] ZANWHC 42 (15 December 2004)
The applicant established that he was in undisturbed possession of the movables and the farm, was the owner, and was unlawfully deprived of possession by the respondents, justifying a final spoliation order. The respondents failed to prove the existence of a partnership, any contribution to the assets, or a contract with the applicant. The application for condonation by the respondents' attorney was dismissed due to lack of reasonable explanation for non-compliance, repeated negligence, and failure to respond to serious allegations. Costs were awarded against the respondents' attorney on an a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
