Berlein and Another v Seiti (11237/09) [2009] ZAKZDHC 77 (2 October 2009)

Berlein and Another v Seiti (11237/09) [2009] ZAKZDHC 77 (2 October 2009)

The applicants, as registered owners, lawfully terminated the lease agreement by giving the respondent two months' written notice in accordance with the Extended Lease Agreement. The notice to vacate was clear and unequivocal, satisfying the requirements for termination. The respondent failed to vacate the property after expiry of the notice period and has no further right to occupy. The respondent's arguments regarding the form and content of the notice are without merit, as the law requires only clear communication of intention to terminate, not specific wording. The respondent is therefore an unlawful occupier under PIE. All procedural requirements for eviction under PIE have been met,...

Citation
[2009] ZAKZDHC 77
Parties
Applicant: Brian Berlein; Applicant: Veena Berlein; Respondent: Stanley Seiti
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2009
Case Number
11237/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE After Unsuccessful Magistrates' Court Proceedings and Subsequent Appeal
Outcome
Eviction order granted in favour of the applicants; respondent and all persons occupying under him to vacate the property within thirty days; costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
Steyn
Legal Topics
Illegal Eviction, Unlawful Occupation, Lease Termination, Contract Interpretation, Pie Act, Notice to Vacate
Land and Property Civil Procedure Illegal Eviction Unlawful Occupation Lease Termination Contract Interpretation Pie Act Notice to Vacate

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Berlein

Applicant

Veena Berlein

Applicant

Stanley Seiti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE After Unsuccessful Magistrates' Court Proceedings and Subsequent Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have lawfully terminated the lease agreement with the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is an unlawful occupier under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements of PIE have been met for an eviction order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, as registered owners, lawfully terminated the lease agreement by giving the respondent two months' written notice in accordance with the Extended Lease Agreement. The notice to vacate was clear and unequivocal, satisfying the requirements for termination. The respondent failed to vacate the property after expiry of the notice period and has no further right to occupy. The respondent's arguments regarding the form and content of the notice are without merit, as the law requires only clear communication of intention to terminate, not specific wording. The respondent is therefore an unlawful occupier under PIE. All procedural requirements for eviction under PIE have been met,...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted in favour of the applicants; respondent and all persons occupying under him to vacate the property within thirty days; costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent and any persons occupying under him are ordered to vacate 7 Heaton Nicholls Road, Kloof, within thirty days of service of this order.
  • If the respondent or any person occupying by, through, or under him fails to comply, the Sheriff is authorised and directed to eject them and hand vacant possession to the applicants.