AJP Properties CC v Sello (39302/10) [2017] ZAGPJHC 255; 2018 (1) SA 535 (GJ) (8 September 2017)

AJP Properties CC v Sello (39302/10) [2017] ZAGPJHC 255; 2018 (1) SA 535 (GJ) (8 September 2017)

The court held that while the lease agreement permitted termination on one month's notice, the interests of justice required a reasonable period for the respondent to relocate, given the commercial realities, the respondent's compliance with the lease, and the applicant's failure to promptly disclose the new lease with Pepkor. The court found that the respondent had invested substantially in the pharmacy, which included goodwill tied to its location, and that immediate eviction would cause undue hardship to the respondent and his employees. The applicant's delay in notifying the respondent of the new lease was material, and the court determined that a three-month period to vacate was...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 255
Parties
Applicant: AJP Properties CC; Respondent: Sello, Ditonkana Abram
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2017
Case Number
39302/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted but stayed; respondent to vacate by 31 October 2017; no order as to costs.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Termination, Stay of Execution, Contra Bonos Mores, Urgent Application, Interests of Justice
Land and Property Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Eviction Lease Termination Stay of Execution Contra Bonos Mores Urgent Application +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AJP Properties CC

Applicant

Sello, Ditonkana Abram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the one calendar month notice period for termination of the lease is contra bonos mores.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to a stay of execution of the eviction order to allow reasonable time to relocate.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct in delaying notice of the new lease with Pepkor affects the interests of justice in granting immediate eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the lease agreement permitted termination on one month's notice, the interests of justice required a reasonable period for the respondent to relocate, given the commercial realities, the respondent's compliance with the lease, and the applicant's failure to promptly disclose the new lease with Pepkor. The court found that the respondent had invested substantially in the pharmacy, which included goodwill tied to its location, and that immediate eviction would cause undue hardship to the respondent and his employees. The applicant's delay in notifying the respondent of the new lease was material, and the court determined that a three-month period to vacate was...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted but stayed; respondent to vacate by 31 October 2017; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is urgent.
  • The respondent is ordered to vacate shop 16A in the Kempton Gate Mall Shopping Centre, corner of CR Swart and Rienert Streets, Eldeen, Kempton Park on or before 31 October 2017.