Absa Technology Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Merry Peasant Properties and Another (A5034/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 240 (16 September 2016)

Absa Technology Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Merry Peasant Properties and Another (A5034/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 240 (16 September 2016)

The court found that the 60-month rental period was not inserted in the master rental agreement at the time of signature by the second respondent, Mr Shaw. The only direct evidence was from Mr Shaw, who testified credibly that he intended to enter into a month-to-month agreement and would not have signed for a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 240
Parties
Appellant: Absa Technology Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited; Respondent: The Merry Peasant Properties; Respondent: Trevor Vincent Shaw
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2016
Case Number
A5034/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court, With Leave of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Wepener, Weiner, Modiba
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Rectification of Documents, Lease Agreements, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Formation Rectification of Documents Lease Agreements Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Technology Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited

Appellant

The Merry Peasant Properties

Respondent

Trevor Vincent Shaw

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court, With Leave of the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the master rental agreement binding the first respondent to a 60-month term was valid when the rental period was not inserted at the time of signature.
  2. 2 Whether there was a meeting of the minds between the parties regarding the rental period.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement could be enforced for arrear and future rentals after cancellation by the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 60-month rental period was not inserted in the master rental agreement at the time of signature by the second respondent, Mr Shaw. The only direct evidence was from Mr Shaw, who testified credibly that he intended to enter into a month-to-month agreement and would not have signed for a 60-month term. The appellant failed to call any witness who could contradict this evidence or explain when the 60-month term was inserted. The court held that there was no meeting of the minds regarding a 60-month term, and thus the agreement could not be enforced as such. At best, the agreement was valid on a month-to-month basis, which the first respondent lawfully terminated by...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.