Mayfin (Pty) Ltd v Mthembu and Others (2022/005801) [2022] ZAGPJHC 977 (6 December 2022)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2022/005801
Judge
F Bezuidenhout
The High Court granted a property owner access to clean and repair a hazardous building, while preventing any interference with occupiers’ continued occupation pending eviction proceedings.
R.J Motors CC t/a V.W Audi Clinic v Jennings and Others (2931/2021) [2022] ZAECMHC 7 (21 April 2022)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Case number
2931/2021
Judge
Pakati
The court found that the applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the premises until it was unlawfully dispossessed by the respondents, who prevented access and threatened violence. The respondents' claim of a lien was rejected due to the absence of a contractual relationship with the applicant. The respondents' conduct amounted to self-help, which spoliation law seeks to prevent. The applicant satisfied the requirements for both a mandament van spolie and a final interdict, as its right to possession and access was clear, the injury was committed, and no alternative remedy was…
Meintjies N.O. and Others v Nel Bk and Others (4122/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 28 (9 February 2017)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
4122/2016
Judge
N.W. Phalatsi
The High Court dismissed a spoliation application, finding the applicants had not proved unlawful dispossession of the house, yard, storeroom, or access road.
Driemeyer v Driemeyer (3537/2016P) [2016] ZAKZPHC 71 (1 July 2016)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
3537/2016P
Judge
Mbatha
The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against an urgent interdict granting access to farm property, holding the requirements for appeal were not met.
Solar Mounting Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Engala Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (3717/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 155 (5 September 2014)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
3717/2014
Judge
G.J.M. Wright
The High Court confirmed a spoliation rule nisi after finding the applicant had a right of access to the site and was wrongfully removed by the first respondent.