South Africa Case Law

Van Rooyen and Another v Simms and Others (2022/9719)

Van Rooyen and Another v Simms and Others (2022/9719) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1307 (27 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/9719

Judge

Windell

The court found that the relief sought by the applicants was not competent as an interim interdict, since its effect would be final rather than interim, and the applicants had already obtained interim relief which they failed to execute. There is a clear factual dispute regarding the terms and breach of the oral agreement, and the applicants have not demonstrated a clear right to the relief sought. The purpose of an interim interdict is to preserve the status quo pending final determination, not to grant final relief. The application for a mandatory interim interdict must therefore fail.

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Specific Performance
• Oral Agreement
• Possession Of Premises
• Breach Of Contract

African Cellurar (Pty) Ltd and Another v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070849)

African Cellurar (Pty) Ltd and Another v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070849) [2024] ZAGPJHC 605 (28 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/070849

Judge

GC Wright

Urgent spoliation application removed from the roll because the hearing was not urgent enough and the respondents had not yet had a fair chance to answer.

• Spoliation
• Urgent Interdict
• Possession Of Premises
• Urgent-application
• Civil-procedure
• Possession-of-premises

Michaels v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070685)

Michaels v Firstmile Prop JHB Crown Mines (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024/070685) [2024] ZAGPJHC 604 (28 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/070685

Judge

GC Wright

An urgent spoliation application was removed from the roll because the court found the matter was not urgent enough for a Friday hearing and respondents had not had a fair chance to oppose.

• Spoliation
• Urgent Interdict
• Possession Of Premises
• Urgent-applications
• Possession-of-premises
• Civil-procedure

Gatsby Vibe Salon (Pty) Ltd v Hgbahiwe and Another (2023/082751)

Gatsby Vibe Salon (Pty) Ltd v Hgbahiwe and Another (2023/082751) [2023] ZAGPJHC 995 (6 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/082751

Judge

Moorcroft

The High Court granted a spoliation order restoring a salon’s possession of rented business premises after the first respondent changed the locks and took control.

• Spoliation
• Urgent Interdict
• Possession Of Premises
• Restoration Of Status Quo
• Urgent-interdict
• Possession-of-premises

Louw v Prinsloo and Another (2022/022132)

Louw v Prinsloo and Another (2022/022132) [2023] ZAGPPHC 600 (21 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/022132

Judge

E Labuschagne

The court found that the applicant was in undisturbed possession of the premises, controlling access by means of keys, and was dispossessed by the respondents through forcible entry and demand for possession. The respondents' arguments regarding urgency and disputes of fact were rejected, as the common cause facts established the requisite degree of possession. The court held that the mandament van spolie requires only proof of possession and dispossession, and does not require inquiry into entitlement to possession. Restoration of possession was ordered as the respondents had taken the law i…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Urgent Interdict
• Possession Of Premises
• Restoration Of Possession

JJ and Electrical Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Home Investment 560 (Pty) Ltd and Another (D27/2023)

JJ and Electrical Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Home Investment 560 (Pty) Ltd and Another (D27/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 37 (27 June 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D27/2023

Judge

Marimuthu

The High Court dismissed an urgent spoliation application after finding the applicants failed to show peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Possession Of Premises
• Eviction Proceedings
• Restoration Of Access
• Mandament-van-spolie
• Possession-of-premises

Gumbi v Ralstan Investments (Pty) Limited (13430/2022)

Gumbi v Ralstan Investments (Pty) Limited (13430/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 216 (9 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13430/2022

Judge

Adams

The court found that the applicant was in free and undisturbed possession of the premises until she was locked out by the respondent without a court order. The respondent's version was rejected as far-fetched and untenable. The mandament van spolie is a summary remedy to restore possession, regardless of the underlying lease dispute or the lawfulness of the applicant's occupation. The respondent's actions amounted to unlawful self-help, and the applicant was entitled to immediate restoration of possession and occupation of the premises. The matter was urgent due to the impact on the applicant…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Spoliation
• Urgent Interdict
• Possession Of Premises
• Eviction Proceedings

Lau v Real Tine Investments 165 CC (50134/2019)

Lau v Real Tine Investments 165 CC (50134/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 313 (23 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50134/2019

Judge

Millar

The High Court granted urgent spoliation relief after a landlord disconnected electricity and changed the locks, restoring access and power to a tenant’s internet cafe.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Unlawful Dispossession
• Urgent Interdict
• Possession Of Premises
• Restoration Of Electricity
• Mandament-van-spolie

Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd v Hyprop Investments Ltd (65643/2015)

Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd v Hyprop Investments Ltd (65643/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 692 (6 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

65643/2015

Judge

Holland-Müter

The High Court granted an urgent spoliation order, finding that the respondent unlawfully forced the locks and removed merchandise without due process.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Spoliation Order
• Possession Of Premises
• Parate Executie
• Urgent Interdict
• Mandament-van-spolie

Breytenbach N.O and Others v Mohammed Ahmed and Others (1676/06)

Breytenbach N.O and Others v Mohammed Ahmed and Others (1676/06) [2007] ZANWHC 31 (12 July 2007)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1676/06

Judge

A A Landman

High Court eviction case holding that a sub-sublease ended when the sublessor’s lease ended, so the occupants had no right to remain.

• Eviction
• Sublease Rights
• Termination Of Lease
• Possession Of Premises
• Lease-termination
• Sublease-rights