Wightman v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another

The appellant, a building contractor, entered into a building agreement with the first respondent, represented by its sole director (the second respondent), to perform construction work on property in Hout Bay. Disputes arose in July 2004 regarding payment and alleged defective workmanship. The appellant alleged repudiation by the respondents and claimed a builder’s lien over the property. He retained the main set of keys, kept tools on site, and posted a guard to protect the premises. Although he gave duplicate keys to the second respondent for inspection purposes only, the respondents used those keys to deny him access on 12 July 2004 and placed other contractors in occupation. The appellant launched a spoliation application seeking restoration of possession. The High Court and Full Bench dismissed the application, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The appellant was entitled to spoliatory relief restoring possession of the premises ante omnia. The orders of the courts below dismissing the application were set aside.

This case is a leading authority on what constitutes a real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fact in motion proceedings and emphasises the duty of respondents to engage meaningfully with factual allegations. It also clarifies South African spoliation law by confirming that possession is not necessarily lost by providing duplicate keys for a limited purpose, and that owners can commit spoliation against builders in possession.