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
Justice Benjamin Segomotso Moloabi v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (6116/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 194 (25 June 2025)
The High Court confirmed a rule nisi restoring electricity to a business premises, holding that Eskom’s disconnection was an unlawful spoliation of quasi-possession.
Salcarb KZN (Pty) Ltd v Ikwezi Mining (Pty) Ltd (2024/043364) [2024] ZAGPJHC 434 (6 May 2024)
Urgent spoliation application granted after the court found the respondent’s denials evasive and ordered restoration of access to the mining property.
Jigger Properties CC v Maynard NO and Others (AR395/2015; AR396/2015) [2017] ZAKZPHC 9; 2017 (4) SA 569 (KZP) (13 March 2017)
The court found that the respondents' right of access to the underground tanks in the exclusive use area Y8 was based on contractual arrangements with previous owners and not on a servitude or real right. The respondents did not occupy or exercise physical control over the premises; their access was limited and required the appellant's cooperation. The mandament van spolie does not protect mere personal or contractual rights, only rights to use or occupy property or incidents of occupation. Furthermore, a mere threat to deny access does not constitute spoliation; actual and wrongful deprivati…
Source excerpt
ATM Solutions (pty) Limited v OLKRU Handelaars CC and Another (13362 /07) [2007] ZAWCHC 63; 2008 (2) SA 345 (C); (7 November 2007)
The High Court dismissed an urgent spoliation application over an ATM moved from a shop entrance to a storeroom, finding the claim was really for contractual performance.
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
Explore more
