In the matter between: 

SAMUEL CHARLES MYBURGH						APPLICANT

and

JUDGMENT

DAVIS, J

Briefly it appears to the extent that the facts are common cause that the following occurred.

"Twee premies van R10 000 ... is betaalbaar op 15 Januarie 2008 en 15 Februarie 2008. Die balans daar uitstaande is dan op 10 April 2008 ten voile betaalbaar.  Indien betalings nie op datum geskied sal alle betaling reeds ontvang verbeur word deur bogenoemde en as huurgeld beskou word."

The relief sought requires simply the following;

	

"This   argument   invokes   the   principle  that  a defending respondent in a spoliation action is generally not allowed to contest the spoliated applicant's title to the property. That is because good title is irrelevant:  the claim to despoliatory relief arises solely from an unprocedural depravation and possession. There is a qualification however if the applicant goes further and claims a substantive right to possession whether based on title of ownership on contract. 'In that case respondent may answer such additional claim of right and may demonstrate, if he can, that applicant does not have the right to possession which it claims.' This is because such an applicant 'in effect forces an investigation of issues relevant to the further relief he claims. Once he does this respondent's defence in regard thereto has to be considered." (at para 1 5).