- Case summary
Spoliation proceed;ngs - 1s1 Applicant claims that it had a lease agreement with 2nd Applicant - l s' and 2nd Respondents o rdered shop leased by 21d1 Applicant to 1s1 Applicant to be closed in so doing the Respondents were e11:forcing an Order issued by 3rd Respondent in 2019 conferring ownersh;p rights of the property to Elias Khathwane - 21d1 Applicant asked to be joined and there was no o jection to the joinder - s1 1 Applican t alleges that it was not a party to the 20J 9 dispute - dispute was between 21d1 Appbcant and Elias Khathwane - 1- 1 Applicant's relationship with 21d1 Applicant is based on an existing lease - court'sfinding that the 1st Applicant has sati. fied the requirements for spo liation as same was ;n peaceful possession of the property in dispute and there was no order of court or Royal Kraal Order allowing the locking up of the business premises since the 3rd Respondent 's Ruling pertained to Elias Khathwane and the 2'1d Applicant Rule nisi confirmed with costs.
This document is 3.8 MB. Do you want to load it?