- The court ruled that Northern Cape High School was unlawfully stripped of access to its gym without a court order.
- Judge MV Phatshoane held that the school had lawful quasi-possession and condemned the lockout as self-help.
- The respondents were ordered to restore access immediately and pay costs, including counsel’s fees.
On 15 January 2025, a single WhatsApp message shut down Northern Cape High School’s gym. That message, sent by Helgard Hansen, director of Hansen Elite Wellness (Pty) Ltd, informed the school’s rugby coordinator that pupils no longer had “his permission” to use what he described as “his facility”.
He added that he would contact the police if learners arrived to train. With that message alone, a gym that had formed part of the school’s daily life for years was closed to pupils without any court process, notice or negotiation.
Deputy Judge President MV Phatshoane held that what followed was not a business disagreement but an unlawful act of self-help. “This is a spoliation application,” she wrote. “The mandament van spolie restores unlawfully deprived possession at once.” She stressed that the remedy exists to prevent exactly this kind of conduct, explaining that it “is rooted in the rule of law and its main purpose is to preserve public order by preventing persons from taking the law into their own hands”.
The court was not asked to determine ownership of the gym or equipment, nor was it asked to decide contractual disputes between the parties. The school simply asked to be placed back in the position it occupied before the WhatsApp message arrived and to have its use of the gym restored between 3pm and 5pm weekdays. The court granted precisely that relief.
Court rejects claim that the gym “belonged” to the trainer
Hansen told the court that he had exclusive possession of the gym, that he controlled who entered it and that he locked it every day. He insisted learners had never used the facility without his consent and that the school had no independent right to access it. The court rejected this version of events.
“The respondents failed to produce credible evidence to demonstrate that the school was never in possession of the gymnasium,” Judge Phatshoane ruled.
The evidence before the court showed a different picture. The school had been using the gym from 2020 without obstruction until January 2025. “The evidence demonstrates that the school utilised the gymnasium from 2020 on an unhindered basis until 15 January 2025,” the judge found. It was only after the WhatsApp message that access ended.
She addressed that message directly in her ruling. “On that date, Mr Hansen directed a WhatsApp message in which he unlawfully prohibited the school from gaining access to and use of the facility,” the court held. “By so doing, the respondents effectively resorted to self-help.”
Use, not ownership, was what the law protected
A core issue in the case was whether the school actually possessed the gym in law. Hansen argued that because he claimed control, the school had nothing worth protecting. The court disagreed and made it clear that possession does not require uninterrupted physical occupation.
“Continuous physical contact, occupation or use is not necessary for the retention of possession once it has been acquired,” Judge Phatshoane explained. “The degree of continuity required depends… upon the nature of the thing possessed and the type of use to which it is put.”
The court accepted that the school held what the law recognises as quasi-possession, the lawful exercise of use flowing from its longstanding relationship with the land and facilities. Importantly, she rejected the argument that contractual arrangements with the trainer determined whether that possession existed.
“The incorporeal right of use of the gymnasium… is not connected to any contractual relationship between the school and the respondents,” the court ruled. “There is no reason why an incorporeal right of this nature should not form the subject of spoliation proceedings capable of protection by the mandament van spolie.”
The court did not approach the matter as a mechanical property dispute. Judge Phatshoane described the land and buildings not as detached assets but as part of the school’s identity.
The sports grounds, she wrote, do not “serve as mere tracts of land but as the heartbeat of the school’s sporting life”. She noted that the gym had become “a vital space of recreation, competition and community engagement” and had become inseparable from the life of the school itself.
Judge orders gym reopened
The court ordered Hansen Elite Wellness (Pty) Ltd and Helgard Hansen to immediately restore the school’s “undisturbed possession and use” of the gym. They were also ordered to pay the school’s legal costs, including counsel’s fees.
Judge Phatshoane made it clear that the ruling did not finally determine who owns the gym or who is entitled to operate it commercially. “The mandament van spolie is not aimed at the restoration of rights,” she said. “It provides a temporary solution and sets the scene for the subsequent determination of rights in relation to property.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
