Botha v Pretorius (59005/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 389 (9 June 2016)

Botha v Pretorius (59005/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 389 (9 June 2016)

The court found that the respondent's right to occupy the Mango Bar property was based on a sublease that was dependent on the main lease agreement with Mr Gillingham. When the main lease was cancelled due to breach, the sublease was automatically terminated. The respondent failed to prove the existence of any new lease agreement with the applicant, either written or oral, and his own affidavit confirmed that negotiations for a new lease had not resulted in a concluded agreement. The respondent's reliance on the exceptio non adimpleti contractus was misplaced, as there was no valid lease agreement in existence after August 2014. The respondent had not paid rent since the cancellation and...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 389
Parties
Applicant: Elise Botha; Respondent: Pieter Gerhard Pretorius
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2016
Case Number
59005/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Rei Vindicatio, Lease Cancellation, Eviction, Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rei Vindicatio Lease Cancellation Eviction Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elise Botha

Applicant

Pieter Gerhard Pretorius

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has any legal right to occupy the Mango Bar property after cancellation of the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether a valid lease agreement existed between the applicant and respondent after August 2014.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent can rely on the exceptio non adimpleti contractus defence in the absence of a valid lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's right to occupy the Mango Bar property was based on a sublease that was dependent on the main lease agreement with Mr Gillingham. When the main lease was cancelled due to breach, the sublease was automatically terminated. The respondent failed to prove the existence of any new lease agreement with the applicant, either written or oral, and his own affidavit confirmed that negotiations for a new lease had not resulted in a concluded agreement. The respondent's reliance on the exceptio non adimpleti contractus was misplaced, as there was no valid lease agreement in existence after August 2014. The respondent had not paid rent since the cancellation and...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to forthwith return and relinquish full access and control in and to the portion of the property at Portion [...], Broederstroom [...], known as the Mango Bar, to the applicant.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs.