Protecting Quasi-Possession of Electricity Supply with the Mandament van Spolie – Has the Supreme Court of Appeal Switched Off this Possibility? [A Discussion of Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v Masinda 2019 5 SA 386 (SCA)]
Published date | 29 September 2021 |
Date | 29 September 2021 |
Author | Marais, E.J. |
Pages | 215-233 |
Citation | (2021) 32 Stell LR 215 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2021/i2a2 |
https://doi.org /10.47348/ SLR/2 021/i2a2
215
PROTECTING QUASI-POSSESSION OF
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY WITH THE MANDAMENT
VAN SPOLIE – HAS THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEAL SWITCHED OFF THIS POSSIBILITY?
[A DISCUSSION OF ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC
LTD V MASINDA 2019 5 SA 386 (SCA)]
EJ Marais
BA LLB LLD
Senior Lecturer, University of Johannesburg*
Abstract
In Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Masinda 2019 5 SA 386 (SCA) (“Masinda”),
the Supreme Court of Appe al had to decide whether the mandament va n spolie
is available for restoring qua si-possession of electr icity supply. The respond ent
used the mentioned su pply, which was sourced in contract, a t her home. The
court ruled that the sp oliation remedy does not prote ct the quasi-possession
of rights sourced in contra ct. For its quasi-possessio n to enjoy possessory
protection, the right must b e in the nature of a servitu de, be registered or
ow from legislation. Thi s emphasis on the source of the right is problematic
for two reasons. First, it con tradicts certain comm on-law authorities whic h
reveal that the quasi-possession of electric ity supply sourced in contract doe s,
in fact, enjoy protection unde r the spoliation remedy. This applie s as long as
the supply is a gebru iksreg (use right) and the sp oliatu s performs physical acts
associated with the right on immova ble property. Secondly, (over)emphasising
the source of the right potentially u ndermines variou s fundamental rights.
When the common law is o pen to several possible interpretations, a s seems to
be the case with quasi- possession, the suprema cy of the Constitution a nd the
single-system-of-law p rinciple require that court s choose the interpretatio n
that upholds (rather than impairs) const itutional rights. In the Masinda case,
the court unfortunat ely opted for an understanding of quasi-pos session which
seems to undermine th e Constitution. For these rea sons, the decision is an
unwelcome development .
Keyword s: mandament van spolie; quasi-posse ssion; single-system-o f-law
principle; development of the comm on law; electricit y supply
∗ This art icle was presented as a paper at the South ern Africa n Law Teachers’ Conferenc e 2020, hosted by
the Univer sity of Johan nesburg at the Skuk uza Rest C amp in the Kruger National Park , 20-24 Janua ry
2020 I tha nk the par ticipants of the propert y law panel for their feed back and the two anonymou s peer
reviewers, whose incisive comments really helpe d to improve the art icle Thank s also go to Professor s
Duard Kleyn , Gustav Muller, Warren Freedm an, and Marius de Waal for engag ing with me on the topic,
and to M s Joyce Phiri for providing excellent resear ch assistance Finally, I express my g ratitude to the
NRF for provid ing the finan cial support that m ade this resea rch possible Remaini ng errors are my ow n
(2021) 32 Stell LR 215
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
https://doi.org /10.47348/ SLR/2 021/i2a2
1 Introduction
The mandament van spolie (or spoliation remedy) is available when a
spoliator has completely deprived a spoliatus of possession or where there
has been a subst antial interference with possession.1 It is a speedy and robust
remedy, as it re stores possession forthwith without cour ts investigating
the merits of a dispute.2 If the sp oliatus satises the requirements, namely
peaceful and undis turbed possession and u nlawful spoliation of such
possession,3 and none of the defences again st this remedy i s applicable,4 the
spoliator must restore possession to t he spoliatus before al l else: spoliatus
ante omnia restituen dus est.5 The purpose of the mandament van spolie is
to discourage unlawful self-help by forcing legal s ubjects to resolve disputes
through ofcial legal channels instead of taking the law into their own hands.6
Initially, the spoliation remedy only protect ed possession of corporeal
pr op er ty.7 Through legal development it has also come to protect possession
of incorporeal things, namely rights. The notion of “quasi-possession” is used
in this context, as rights cannot be possessed in the same way as tangible
things.8 Thi s article investigates whether the mandamen t van spolie may still
be u sed to prote ct quasi-possession of a pa rticular right, namely electr icity
supply, used at residential premises. This question recently came up for
decision (again) before the Supreme Court of Appeal in Eskom Holdings SOC
Ltd v Masinda9 (“Masinda”).
The court held that the quasi-possession of a right, in casu elect ricity
supply, only enjoys protection if s uch right is in the nat ure of a servit ude,
is a registered right, or if it is sourced in legislation.10 To t his category
must be added rights which ow from the Constitution of the Republic of
South A frica, 1996 (the “C onstitution”).11 In light of the Mas inda decision,
electricity supply now forms part of the growing category of rights, the
quasi-possession of which does not enjoy possessory protection if the right is
sourced in contract.12 This narr owing of the prote ctive ambit of the spoliation
1 G Muller, R Brits, J M Pienaar & ZT Boggenpoel S ilberberg and Schoe man’s The Law of Property 6 e d
(2019) 326-327; ZT Boggenpoel Pr operty Remed ies (2017) 96-101; DG Kleyn Die Ma ndament van Spol ie
in die Suid-Af rikaanse Reg LLD t hesis University of Pre toria (1986) 297-307
2 Muller et al Law of Propert y 328, 330-332; Boggenpoel Propert y Remedies 97-101
3 For a discussion of these requirement s, see Muller et al Law of Proper ty 332-348; Boggenpoel Property
Remedies 101-128
4 Such as impossibil ity of restor ation of poss ession, for exa mple: see Boggenp oel Propert y Remedies
129-14 9
5 The spoliatus must be restored to his or h er prior position (b efore spoliation occu rred) before all els e
Western Cape Reg ional Servi ces Council 198 8 3 SA 218 (C) 225G- I See also CG van de r Mer we “Th ing s”
in LAWS A 27 (2014) para 93; Muller et al Law of Prop erty 326-327
7 Telkom SA Ltd v X sinet (Pty) Ltd 2003 5 SA 309 (SCA) para 9
8 Telkom SA Ltd v X sinet (Pty) Ltd 2003 5 SA 309 (SCA) para 9 See also Van der Mer we “Thi ngs” in
LAWSA 2 7 para 70; Boggenpoel Propert y Remedies 105-106
9 2019 5 SA 386 (SCA)
10 See the discu ssion of the judgment i n part 2 below
11 City of Cap e Town v Strümpher 2012 4 SA 207 (SCA) paras 9-10
12 See, for in stance, Telkom SA Ltd v Xsinet (P ty) Ltd 2003 5 SA 309 (SCA) (which concer ned quasi-
possession of telec ommunications se rvice) See also Firstra nd Ltd t/a Rand Merchan t Bank v Scholtz NO
216 STEL L LR 2021 2
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial