Auckland Park Theological Seminary v University of Johannesburg (1160/2018) [2020] ZASCA 24; [2020] HIPR 110 (SCA) (25 March 2020)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v University of Johannesburg (1160/2018) [2020] ZASCA 24; [2020] HIPR 110 (SCA) (25 March 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the lease agreement contained no express or implied provision rendering the rights personal to Auckland Park Theological Seminary or incapable of cession. The terms of the lease were unambiguous and must be construed objectively. The respondent's reliance on oral evidence to vary or contradict the written lease was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The rights under the lease were not delectus personae and were capable of cession. Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to cancel the lease or evict the appellants, and the judgment of the court a quo was set aside.

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 24
Parties
Appellant: Auckland Park Theological Seminary; Appellant: Wamjay Holdings Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: University of Johannesburg
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2020
Case Number
1160/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court, Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the full court set aside and replaced with dismissal of the plaintiff's claim with costs.
Judges
Ponnan, Van der Merwe, Molemela, Dlodlo, Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Notarial Long Lease, Delectus Personae, Cession of Rights, Parol Evidence Rule, Contract Interpretation
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Notarial Long Lease Delectus Personae Cession of Rights Parol Evidence Rule Contract Interpretation

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auckland Park Theological Seminary

Appellant

Wamjay Holdings Investments (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

University of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court, Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rights under the notarial long lease were delectus personae and personal to the appellant, thus incapable of cession.
  2. 2 Whether oral evidence was admissible to vary, add to, or contradict the written lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to cancel the lease and evict the appellants based on the alleged personal nature of the rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the lease agreement contained no express or implied provision rendering the rights personal to Auckland Park Theological Seminary or incapable of cession. The terms of the lease were unambiguous and must be construed objectively. The respondent's reliance on oral evidence to vary or contradict the written lease was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The rights under the lease were not delectus personae and were capable of cession. Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to cancel the lease or evict the appellants, and the judgment of the court a quo was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the full court set aside and replaced with dismissal of the plaintiff's claim with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the full court is set aside and replaced by: 'The appeal succeeds with costs. The order of court below is set aside and substituted with: “The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.”'