Alexander v Baartman (CA6/08) [2008] ZAECHC 166 (1 September 2008)

Alexander v Baartman (CA6/08) [2008] ZAECHC 166 (1 September 2008)

The court held that the respondent, upon purchasing the property, became the lessor and the lease continued under the maxim huur gaat voor koop. The only issue was whether the respondent validly cancelled the lease. The letter sent by the respondent's attorneys was found to be a clear and unequivocal notice of cancellation, satisfying the requirements of the lease and common law. The appellant could not have been in doubt that his authority to use and enjoy the property was terminated. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to vacate the property within two months.

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 166
Parties
Appellant: Dick Alexander; Respondent: Owen Baartman
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2008
Case Number
CA6/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; appellant ordered to vacate the property within two months.
Judges
C. Plasket, C.M. Somyalo
Legal Topics
Huur Gaat Voor Koop, Lease Cancellation, Eviction, Notice of Termination
Land and Property Civil Procedure Huur Gaat Voor Koop Lease Cancellation Eviction Notice of Termination

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dick Alexander

Appellant

Owen Baartman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent validly cancelled the lease agreement with the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the maxim huur gaat voor koop applies to the facts of this case.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is lawfully required to vacate the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent, upon purchasing the property, became the lessor and the lease continued under the maxim huur gaat voor koop. The only issue was whether the respondent validly cancelled the lease. The letter sent by the respondent's attorneys was found to be a clear and unequivocal notice of cancellation, satisfying the requirements of the lease and common law. The appellant could not have been in doubt that his authority to use and enjoy the property was terminated. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to vacate the property within two months.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; appellant ordered to vacate the property within two months.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellant is ordered to vacate the property within two months of the date of this judgment.