South Africa Case Law

Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner's Association (Leave to Appeal) (2025/040657)

Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner's Association (Leave to Appeal) (2025/040657) [2025] ZAWCHC 258 (20 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/040657

Judge

Bhoopchand

The Court found that while the Applicants had previously enjoyed use of the Respondent’s facilities, this use was governed by a contract that had expired. The Applicants’ claim for relief under the mandament van spolie was not appropriate because their rights were contractual and personal, not possessory. The Court followed the principle established in Abrahams, holding that the law protects possession, not mere access or contractual rights. However, the Court was persuaded that another Court might reach a different conclusion given the complex interplay between contracts and quasi-possession…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Quasi Possession
• Contractual Rights Vs Possession
• Leave To Appeal
• Specific Performance

Bodies Under Construction CC and Others v Permasolve Investments (Pty) Ltd (19457/2023)

Bodies Under Construction CC and Others v Permasolve Investments (Pty) Ltd (19457/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 326 (20 December 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19457/2023

Judge

Wille

The court ordered reconnection of a gym to an alternative power supply after finding the landlord unlawfully disrupted quasi-possession pending arbitration.

• Spoliation
• Quasi Possession
• Lease Dispute
• Alternative Power Supply
• Urgent Interdict
• Quasi-possession

Mogoboya and Others v Mogoboya and Others (8797/2023)

Mogoboya and Others v Mogoboya and Others (8797/2023) [2023] ZALMPPHC 99 (23 October 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

8797/2023

Judge

Kganyago

The High Court granted urgent spoliation relief after finding the applicants were forcibly removed from Batlhabine Traditional Council offices without due process.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Unlawful Dispossession
• Traditional Leadership
• Council Dissolution
• Quasi Possession
• Mandament-van-spolie

Harrismith Intabazwe Tsiame Residents Association (Pty) Ltd and Others v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality and Another (567/2022)

Harrismith Intabazwe Tsiame Residents Association (Pty) Ltd and Others v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality and Another (567/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 151 (14 June 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

567/2022

Judge

JP Daffue

The court found that the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of electricity supply at their business premises, and that the respondents unlawfully terminated such supply without proper notice, procedural fairness, or compliance with their own credit control policy. The respondents failed to prove any arrears on current accounts or provide valid invoices or breakdowns of alleged historic debts. The court held that the right to electricity is an incident of occupation of the premises and thus protected by the mandament van spolie. The respondents' resort to self-help was unla…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Municipal Services Termination
• Procedural Fairness
• Credit Control Policy
• Urgent Interdict
• Quasi Possession

Blendrite (Pty) Ltd and Another v Moonisami and Another (227/2020)

Blendrite (Pty) Ltd and Another v Moonisami and Another (227/2020) [2021] ZASCA 77; 2021 (5) SA 61 (SCA); [2021] HIPR 172 (SCA) (10 June 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

227/2020

Judges

Navsa, Mocumie, Dlodlo, Ledwaba, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's prior access to the server and email address did not constitute quasi-possession of incorporeal property protectable by the mandament van spolie. The use of the server and email address was not an incident of possession of any corporeal property, nor did it arise from a servitude. Instead, any entitlement to such access was a personal right, possibly arising from the respondent's contested directorship or contractual relationship with Blendrite. The court found no basis to distinguish this matter from Telkom SA v Xsinet, which held that p…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Quasi Possession
• Spoliation Order
• Incorporeal Property
• Servitude
• Specific Performance

Makeshift 1190 (Pty) Ltd v Cilliers (A38/2020)

Makeshift 1190 (Pty) Ltd v Cilliers (A38/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 41; [2020] 3 All SA 234 (WCC); 2020 (5) SA 538 (WCC) (25 May 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A38/2020

Judges

Rogers, Cloete

Appeal over spoliatory relief for disconnection of farm electricity dismissed; the court held the right to electricity was incidental to occupation.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Quasi Possession
• Electricity Supply
• Precarium
• Specific Performance
• Unlawful Occupation

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Metchem Steelpoort CC (A5049/2019)

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Metchem Steelpoort CC (A5049/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 31 (19 February 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5049/2019

Judges

Bester, DJF du Plessis, ML Twala

The High Court held that Metchem had only a contractual right to electricity, so the mandament van spolie was unavailable. Eskom’s appeal succeeded.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Quasi Possession
• Specific Performance
• Urgent Application
• Mandament-van-spolie
• Quasi-possession

Moonisami v Global Network Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others (D5815/19)

Moonisami v Global Network Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others (D5815/19) [2019] ZAKZDHC 18 (4 October 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D5815/19

Judge

M R Chetty

The court found that the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of access to the company’s email and network/server until it was terminated by the first respondent on instruction from the second and third respondents. The court held that such access constitutes quasi-possession of an incorporeal right, which is protected by the mandament van spolie. The dispute regarding the applicant’s directorship was deemed irrelevant to the possessory remedy sought, as the mandament van spolie requires only proof of possession and unlawful deprivation, not proof of a right. The court further…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Quasi Possession
• Email And Network Access
• Urgent Interdict
• Punitive Costs

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Masinda (1225/2018)

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v Masinda (1225/2018) [2019] ZASCA 98; 2019 (5) SA 386 (SCA) (18 June 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1225/2018

Judges

Leach, Wallis, Mocumie, Mokgohloa, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the supply of electricity to Ms Masinda's property was not an incident of possession protectable by the mandament van spolie. The right to receive electricity in this case was a personal right arising from a contractual relationship, specifically through a prepaid system, and not a right linked to the possession of the property. The court found that previous decisions suggesting that mere supply of electricity or water constitutes an incident of possession were wrongly decided. As Ms Masinda failed to establish that her right to electricity was an inciden…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Quasi Possession
• Specific Performance
• Incorporeal Rights

Dennegeur Estate Home Owners Association and Another v Telkom SA SOC Ltd and Another (366/2018)

Dennegeur Estate Home Owners Association and Another v Telkom SA SOC Ltd and Another (366/2018) [2019] ZASCA 37; 2019 (4) SA 451 (SCA) (29 March 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

366/2018

Judges

Lewis, Ponnan, Zondi, Dlodlo, Eksteen

Telkom did not have physical possession of the infrastructure or cables, as the infrastructure was owned and controlled by the Home Owners Association. Its rights under section 22 of the Electronic Communications Act were servitutal and limited to actual use, not to vacant space. Quasi-possession for purposes of the mandament van spolie only extends to the factual exercise of the right, which in this case was limited to the space occupied by Telkom's cables. Vodacom's installation of optic fibre cables in the same ducts did not disturb Telkom's actual use or possession, and any brief interrup…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Servitutal Rights
• Electronic Communications Act
• Quasi Possession
• Municipal Roads
• Amicus Curiae Costs