Cassim N.O v Group of persons currently on and/or occupying the premises situated at [...] A[...], Bryanston, Johannesburg (066390/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1060 (17 April 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1060 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Cassim N.O v Group of persons currently on and/or occupying the premises situated at [...] A[...], Bryanston, Johannesburg (066390/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1060 (17 April 2025) Cassim N.O v Group of persons currently on and/or occupying the premises situated at [...] A[...], Bryanston, Johannesburg (066390/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1060 (17 April 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1060.html sino date 17 April 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy # IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO :  066390/2024 DATE :  17-04-2025 (1) REPORTABLE:  YES / NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  YES / NO. (3) REVISED. DATE 17/4/25 SIGNATURE In the matter between ZAHEER CASSIM N.O.                                         Applicant and GROUP OF PERSONS CURRENTLY ON AND/OR OCCUPYING THE PREMISES SITUATED AT [...] A[...], BRYANSTON, JOHANNESBURG Respondents JUDGMENT MAKHOBA, J : 1.  This is an application by the applicants in terms of Section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 to enforce the judgment that I delivered on 11 July 2024.  It is a spoliation order. 2.  There was an application for leave to appeal which was dismissed this morning. 3.  For all intents and purposes therefore there is no leave to appeal in this matter.  The 1 st respondent is not represented.  The 2 nd and 3 rd are represented by Mr Maponya. 4.  I did pose a question to Mr Maponya whether the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are occupying the property and whether they are opposing the application.  The answer was in the positive, that yes they are occupying the property and they are opposing the application. 5.  Mr Raubenheimer for the applicants is of the view that the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, they have now identified themselves as the occupiers of the property and as part of the people that are opposing this application.  It must be remembered that in my judgment there is just a group of persons, there is no individual identified. 6.  Mr Maponya argued on the misjoinder and with respect, I do not understand why he says there is a misjoinder, because the parties that have been cited, they are saying we are occupying the property and we are opposing this application for various reasons that I am not going to go into. 7.  Importance in this application is what I said in the judgment.  I am going to quote myself on paragraph 17 of my judgment, I say the following: "The true purpose of the mandament van spolie is not the protection and vindication of rights in general, but rather the restoration of the status quo ante. " 8.  I did ask counsel, Mr Maponya, in fact I did say to him that even a thief in our law is protected, you must return the status quo ante , there is no self-help that is allowed in our law. 9.  Now should this Court not protect the applicants, I am not concerned about any appeal, I think Mr Raubenheimer put it rightly so that a question about the appeal and the merits is of no importance in such an application, because this is a spoliation order. 10. Now they have asked me, the applicants, to protect them and I did issue an order to protect them.  They want that order to be implemented.  And there is no appeal against my decision. Now why can this Court not then give effect to Section 18(3)? I think that is the question I must ask myself, why should this Court not give effect to Section 8(3) without going into the theory, the case law of Section 18(3). From face value it is clear that with the spoliation the Court must act as soon as possible to protect the victim.  Especially in this matter where there is no leave to appeal granted or any appeal, why should I not protect the victim that is the applicants?  On paper and in the address by counsel, there is no good reason furnished to me. For that reason, I am of the view that the application must succeed and the draft order which encompasses or which I asked counsel to upload it and on CaseLines which consist of the prayers on the notice of motion, that draft order is then made the order of Court. MAKHOBA, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  ………………. sino noindex make_database footer start