'According to our law, a plaintiff's claim for the recovery of possession or for ejectment is based on his ownership of the property involved, his cause of action is simply the fact of his ownership coupled with the fact that possession is held by the defendant. (Graham 1931 TPD 476; 1965 v Ridley Krugersdorp Town Council v Fortuin (2) SA 335 (T) at 336 and the authorities there cited.)' [15] In Unimark Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Erf 94 Silvertondale (Pty) Ltd Van der Westhuizen, AJ said: 'The plaintiff's claim is in the first place based upon the rei vindicatio, which is the — — applicable action available to an owner, who has been deprived of his or her property against his or her will and who wishes to recover the property from any person who retain possession of it without the owner's consent…The plaintiff in order to succeed is required to allege and prove: that he is the of the thing or items in issue; and that the items were in the possession of the defendant at the commencement of the action…' [16] For the defendant to successfully resist a rei vindicatio action, he must allege and some right to hold possession. In this court those legal principles were accepted in the matter of Shimuadi v Shirungu where Levy, J held that: is trite that in order to eject a defendant from immovable property, a plaintiff need only ‘It allege that he is the owner and that the defendant is in occupation thereof. Should the defendant deny any one of these elements, namely that the plaintiff is the owner or that the defendant is in occupation, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the truth of the element which is denied. The plaintiff would succeed in discharging the onus of proof in respect of ownership by providing registered tittle deeds in his favour. An inference that plaintiff is the owner would then justifiably be drawn. Should the defendant dispute the validity of the title deeds or that ownership, despite the deeds, is of a character’ ‘nominal (‘nominale aard’), as in the present case, the onus is on the defendant to prove this.’ D APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
'According to our law, a plaintiff's claim for the recovery of possession or for ejectment is based on his ownership of the property involved, his cause of action is simply the fact of his ownership coupled with the fact that possession is held by the defendant. (Graham v Ridley 1931 TPD 476; Krugersdorp Town Council v Fortuin 1965 (2) SA 335 (T) at 336 and the authorities there cited.)' [15] In Unimark Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Erf 94 Silvertondale (Pty) Ltd Van der Westhuizen, AJ said: 'The plaintiff's claim is — in the first place — based upon the rei vindicatio, which is the applicable action available to an owner, who has been deprived of his or her property against his or her will and who wishes to recover the property from any person who retain possession of it without the owner's consent…The plaintiff in order to succeed is required to allege and prove: that he is the of the thing or items in issue; and that the items were in the possession of the defendant at the commencement of the action…' [16] For the defendant to successfully resist a rei vindicatio action, he must allege and some right to hold possession. In this court those legal principles were accepted in the matter of Shimuadi v Shirungu where Levy, J held that: ‘It is trite that in order to eject a defendant from immovable property, a plaintiff need only allege that he is the owner and that the defendant is in occupation thereof. Should the defendant deny any one of these elements, namely that the plaintiff is the owner or that the defendant is in occupation, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the truth of the element which is denied. The plaintiff would succeed in discharging the onus of proof in respect of ownership by providing registered tittle deeds in his favour. An inference that plaintiff is the owner would then justifiably be drawn. Should the defendant dispute the validity of the title deeds or that ownership, despite the deeds, is of a ‘nominal character’ (‘nominale aard’), as in the present case, the onus is on the defendant to prove this.’ D APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
Awaseb%20v%20Kandjii%20(I%202696-2012)%20[2014]%20NAHCMD%20315%20(24%20October%202014).docx