Croco Motors (Pvt) Ltd v Redan Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd t/a Puma Petroleum and Total Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd

Croco Motors (Pvt) Ltd occupied a service station at Stand 46A Comet Rise Township (Mount Pleasant service station) initially as a subtenant from 1996. In 2009, Total Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd leased the premises from the owners (the Russets) and contracted with Croco Motors as a sub-tenant. On 5 February 2013, Croco Motors and Total Zimbabwe entered into a Marketing Licence Agreement expiring on 30 August 2015. Redan Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd purchased the premises from the Russets and entered into a lease agreement with Total Zimbabwe from 1 February 2014 to 31 August 2015. Total Zimbabwe gave Croco Motors 8 months' notice to vacate by 31 August 2015. Negotiations between Croco Motors and Redan for a new lease failed. On 1 September 2015, Redan's employees and contractors arrived at the premises to rebrand and renovate, erecting barricades and digging trenches at the entrances. Croco Motors' employees resisted and allegedly assaulted some of Redan's personnel. Croco Motors brought an urgent application for a mandament van spolie, while Redan sought an interdict against Croco Motors.

• Whether Croco Motors (Pvt) Ltd was entitled to a mandament van spolie (spoliation order) despite the termination of the Marketing Licence Agreement
• Whether prior notices to vacate disturbed peaceful possession so as to disentitle Croco Motors from spoliation relief
• Whether Redan Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd was entitled to take possession of the premises without a court order after expiry of the Marketing Licence Agreement
• Whether Redan Petroleum could bring a counter-spoliation application or obtain a final interdict on an urgent basis
• Whether ownership rights entitled Redan to self-help remedies

In HC 8255/15 (Croco Motors' application): A provisional spoliation order was granted interdicting Redan Petroleum and all persons acting through it from interfering with Croco Motors' peaceful possession of the service station without a valid court order. Redan was ordered to remove barricades within 24 hours. In HC 8272/15 (Redan Petroleum's application): The application was dismissed with costs.

No person is entitled to take the law into their own hands by forcibly dispossessing another of property, regardless of the strength of their claim to the property. A spoliation order requires proof of peaceful and undisturbed possession and wrongful deprivation thereof; the court does not inquire into the juridical nature or lawfulness of the possession. The giving of notices to vacate does not constitute disturbance of peaceful possession so as to disentitle an occupier from spoliation relief. Even an owner with a clear right to property must follow due process of law and obtain a court order for ejectment rather than resorting to self-help. The remedy of spoliation is available even to unlawful occupiers. A final interdict cannot be sought on an urgent basis.

The court observed that the remedy of spoliation is available even to a thief, citing Chisveto v Minister of Local Government and Town Planning 1985(1) ZLR 248 (H) and Bok Estates (Pvt) Ltd v Hubert Masara and Others 2009 (2) 466 (H). The court noted that even in land matters, possession of an offer letter does not negate the right of an unlawful occupier to seek a spoliation order, referring to Dodhill (Pvt) Ltd and Another v Minister of Lands and Another 2009 (1) 182 (H). The court commented that the granting of a spoliation order and the interdict sought by Redan were mutually exclusive remedies.

This case reinforces the fundamental principle in Zimbabwean law (applicable to South African law as well given the common law heritage) that self-help is prohibited and that peaceful possession, regardless of its lawfulness, is protected by the remedy of mandament van spolie. The judgment emphasizes that ownership rights do not entitle a party to forcibly evict occupiers without obtaining a court order, even where the occupier's right to possession has clearly terminated. The case demonstrates that spoliation is a possessory remedy that does not inquire into the merits of the parties' rights, and is available even to unlawful occupiers, including thieves. It clarifies that mere notices to vacate do not constitute disturbance of peaceful possession sufficient to defeat a spoliation application.