These are the sentences you can put on a page when a Monday roll tries to turn a spoliation into a trial on title. Do not cite all of them. Pick the one that does the work.
Nino Bonino v De Lange 1906 TS 120
The old root. Spoliation is a possessory remedy. The court restores possession first and asks about rights afterwards. A magistrate who starts with the lease is already in the wrong enquiry.
Yeko v Qana 1973 (4) SA 735 (A)
The Appellate Division’s clean statement of the two requirements: peaceful and undisturbed possession, and unlawful deprivation. Ownership is irrelevant. Even a thief may be protected against self-help. That last sentence still startles attorneys. It is still the law.
Ivanov v North West Gambling Board 2012 (6) SA 67 (SCA)
Mhlantla JA: the aim is to prevent self-help. Upon proof of the two requirements the applicant is entitled to a mandament van spolie restoring the status quo ante. The cause of possession does not matter.
Ngqukumba v Minister of Safety and Security 2014 (5) SA 112 (CC)
Madlanga J, for a unanimous Court: “The essence of the mandament van spolie is the restoration before all else of unlawfully deprived possession to the possessor.” It applies even against the police. It matters not that a state organ purported to act under colour of a statute. If the seizure was unlawful, possession is restored ante omnia. Keep this case on the blotter whenever SAPS is the respondent.
Swart v Gariep Systems [2026] ZANCHC 51 (5 June 2026)
A Northern Cape reminder this winter: where a respondent locks a person out unless an “exit agreement” is signed, that is self-help. The merits of a management contract are irrelevant to the spoliation enquiry. Possession is restored first. The case cites Ngqukumba in the proper place.
How to use this page
Yeko for the two-part test. Ngqukumba when the respondent is the State. Ivanov when counsel starts a speech about title. Swart when someone has been locked out “pending negotiations”.