Arcelormittal South Africa Limited v Norman and Gary Abkin Dunswart (Pty) Ltd (25729/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 330 (23 August 2019)

Arcelormittal South Africa Limited v Norman and Gary Abkin Dunswart (Pty) Ltd (25729/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 330 (23 August 2019)

The court found that the respondent occupied the specified properties under a tacit lease agreement, which was terminable on reasonable notice. The applicant gave seven weeks' notice to vacate, which the court deemed reasonable. The respondent's defences regarding identification of the properties, cancellation of the lease, obligation to negotiate in good faith, entitlement to a lien, protection under a void sale agreement, non-joinder of sub-tenants, and adequacy of notice were all dismissed. The court held that the exclusion of a lien in the written lease agreement was incorporated into the tacit lease, and that the respondent had no right to remain in occupation. The applicant was...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 330
Parties
Applicant: Arcelormittal South Africa Limited; Respondent: Norman and Gary Abkin Dunswart Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Case Number
25729/2018
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; respondent ordered to vacate the properties within 30 days; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
D Dosio
Legal Topics
Eviction, Tacit Lease, Reasonable Notice, Lien, Non Joinder, Contract Cancellation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Tacit Lease Reasonable Notice Lien Non Joinder Contract Cancellation

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arcelormittal South Africa Limited

Applicant

Norman and Gary Abkin Dunswart Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is unlawfully occupying the specified immovable properties and should be evicted.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement was properly cancelled on reasonable notice.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has a valid lien for improvements to the leased premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent occupied the specified properties under a tacit lease agreement, which was terminable on reasonable notice. The applicant gave seven weeks' notice to vacate, which the court deemed reasonable. The respondent's defences regarding identification of the properties, cancellation of the lease, obligation to negotiate in good faith, entitlement to a lien, protection under a void sale agreement, non-joinder of sub-tenants, and adequacy of notice were all dismissed. The court held that the exclusion of a lien in the written lease agreement was incorporated into the tacit lease, and that the respondent had no right to remain in occupation. The applicant was...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to vacate the properties within 30 days; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent and all persons holding through or under it must vacate Erf 8736 Benoni Extension 74, Erf 8737 Benoni Extension 74, and the Remaining Extent of Erf 2668, Benoni Township within 30 days of this order.
  • If the respondent or those holding through or under it fail to vacate, the Sheriff is authorized to evict them from the properties.