South Africa Case Law

Tau Mining Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Aveng Moolmans (Pty) Ltd and Another (2671/2024)

Tau Mining Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Aveng Moolmans (Pty) Ltd and Another (2671/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 103 (1 November 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2671/2024

Judge

Lever

The court found that the applicant had established both the physical and mental elements of possession required for a mandament van spolie, as possession was implied by the nature of the mining contract and the statutory obligations imposed on the applicant. The area claimed was sufficiently delineated by annexure FA4, and both respondents were aware of its boundaries. The applicant was unlawfully deprived of possession and did not voluntarily part with it. Although urgency was not properly established and the abridged timeframes were oppressive, the court exercised its discretion to entertai…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Urgent Interdict
• Mining Contracts
• Possessory Rights

Goliath v Dirk Ellis Motor Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (3034/2021)

Goliath v Dirk Ellis Motor Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (3034/2021) [2021] ZAECGHC 94 (12 October 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3034/2021

Judge

E Smith

The High Court granted urgent spoliation relief, restoring possession and return of items after the respondents forcibly entered property, but refused rebuilding and ordered no costs.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Possessory Rights
• Urgent Interdict
• Res Judicata
• Mandament-van-spolie
• Possessory-rights

OMJ Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Police and Others (6240/2020)

OMJ Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Police and Others (6240/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 86 (21 October 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

6240/2020

Judge

M Naude

Urgent spoliation application over trucks and trailers seized by police without a warrant. The court found the later removal unlawful and restored possession conditionally.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Warrantless Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 20 And 22
• Possessory Rights
• Restoration Of Possession
• Mandament-van-spolie

Bill v Waterfall Estate Home Owners Association NPC and Another (2019/21837)

Bill v Waterfall Estate Home Owners Association NPC and Another (2019/21837) [2020] ZAGPJHC 81; [2020] 3 All SA 115 (GJ); 2020 (6) SA 145 (GJ) (5 March 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/21837

Judge

F Southwood

The court found that the applicant had established quasi-possession of a right of access to the estate, which is an incident of possession of the property and thus protected by the mandament van spolie. The deactivation of the applicant's biometric access linked to the property and the denial of his contractors' access constituted dispossession of these rights. The respondents' reliance on the MOI and Estate Rules to justify their conduct amounted to unlawful self-help, as these provisions did not empower them to unilaterally deprive the applicant of access without a court order. The court he…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Possessory Rights
• Home Owners Association Rules
• Self Help Remedies
• Contractual Interpretation

Mighty Solutions CC t/a Orlando Service Station v Engen Petroleum Ltd and Another (CCT211/14)

Mighty Solutions CC t/a Orlando Service Station v Engen Petroleum Ltd and Another (CCT211/14) [2015] ZACC 34; 2016 (1) SA 621 (CC); 2016 (1) BCLR 28 (CC) (19 November 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT211/14

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal in a commercial eviction dispute, holding a sub-lessee could not dispute the lessor’s title after lease termination.

• Eviction
• Common Law Lease Principles
• Standing To Evict
• Development Of Common Law
• Possessory Rights
• Enrichment Lien

Shell South Africa Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Exclusive Access Trading 431 (Pty) Ltd (5434/2014)

Shell South Africa Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Exclusive Access Trading 431 (Pty) Ltd (5434/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 346 (28 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5434/2014

Judge

Andrews

The High Court granted an interdict, return of assets, and eviction after finding the franchise agreement had been lawfully cancelled and the respondent was unlawfully trading under Shell branding.

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Intellectual Property Protection
• Eviction
• Interdict
• Breach Of Contract
• Possessory Rights

Engen Petroleum Limited v Sagewise 1068 CC t/a Kutloano Filling Station and Another (47215/12)

Engen Petroleum Limited v Sagewise 1068 CC t/a Kutloano Filling Station and Another (47215/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 453 (5 August 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

47215/12

Judge

Sutherland

The court found that the applicant, as head lessee, retains possessory rights to evict the respondents, notwithstanding the liquidation of the original lessor. The Petroleum Products Act 120 of 1977, as amended, does not extinguish these common law rights, as there is no clear legislative intention to do so. Previous unreported judgments in the Division have addressed and rejected the respondents' arguments regarding statutory displacement of possessory rights. The doctrine of precedent binds the court to follow those decisions unless they are clearly wrong, which was not established. The res…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Lease Termination
• Possessory Rights
• Petroleum Products Act
• Common Law Remedies

CH Offshore Ltd v PDV Marina SA and Others (A113/2013)

CH Offshore Ltd v PDV Marina SA and Others (A113/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 62 (5 November 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A113/2013

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

The court held that the possessory rights of PDV Marina SA in the MT Rio Caroni, arising from a bareboat charter-party, are not real rights located within the jurisdiction of the South African court and cannot be arrested as security for the applicant's claim. The rights under the charter-party are contractual and their situs is where the shipowner resides, not where the vessel is physically present. The court found that mere possession does not constitute a real right or an asset in the estate of the charterer, and the arrest of such rights does not serve the legitimate purpose of providing…

Source excerpt

• Security Arrest
• Bareboat Charter
• Possessory Rights
• Jurisdiction
• Hire Purchase
• Action In Rem