Moideen Manuel and Knoesen Trading (Pvt) Ltd v Victor Ross Manickum and The Deputy Sheriff

On 31 May 2012, the 1st respondent (Manickum) issued summons against the applicants (Manuel and Knoesen Trading) claiming eviction and payment of outstanding rentals. The summons was served on 6 June 2012. On 15 June 2012, the parties met to attempt an out-of-court settlement, and further met on 22 June 2012 where they agreed to increase rentals to US$1,200.00. On 25 June 2012, the applicants indicated they were unable to abide by the terms and rejected the new rental offer, causing the agreement to fall away. On 19 July 2012, the applicants were advised they were in mora and litigation would continue. The 1st respondent obtained default judgment. The applicants were given notice of eviction on 2 November 2012, scheduled for 7 November 2012. On 12 November 2012, the applicants themselves wrote to the 1st respondent indicating they were moving out of the premises as per the court order and voluntarily vacated the premises. The applicants then sought a provisional order to restore their occupation and to stay the writ of execution and eviction dated 26 October 2012.

• Whether an interim interdict can be granted to restore occupation of premises after the applicants have already voluntarily vacated pursuant to a court order
• Whether interim relief is available as a remedy for past invasions of rights that have already been lost by operation of law

The application was dismissed with costs.

An interim interdict is not a remedy for past invasions of rights and will not be granted to a person whose rights in a thing have already been taken from him by operation of law at the time he makes an application for interim relief. Where an applicant has already voluntarily vacated premises pursuant to a court order of eviction, an application for an interim order to restore occupation must fail as the rights sought to be protected have already been lost.

The court noted that the applicants had moved out of the premises on their own volition "so to speak", having written a letter confirming their voluntary vacation of the premises. This suggests that even where there may be some element of compliance with a court order, if the departure is voluntary, the party cannot later seek restoration through interim relief mechanisms.

This case reaffirms the well-established principle in Zimbabwean law (applicable to South African jurisprudence through common authority) that interim interdicts are prospective remedies designed to prevent future harm, not retrospective remedies to reverse past invasions of rights that have already been completed by operation of law. The case demonstrates that once a party has voluntarily complied with a court order and vacated premises, they cannot use an interim interdict to restore their occupation. The case emphasizes the limited scope of interim relief and the importance of timing in seeking such relief.