Breytenbach N.O and Others v Mohammed Ahmed and Others (1676/06) [2007] ZANWHC 31 (12 July 2007)

Breytenbach N.O and Others v Mohammed Ahmed and Others (1676/06) [2007] ZANWHC 31 (12 July 2007)

The court found that the sublessor, Mr Botha, could not confer greater rights to occupation than he himself held. When Mr Botha's sublease terminated, so did the sub-sublease with the first and second respondents. Although there was an oral extension of the sublease, it was common cause that this terminated on 30 November 2006. Therefore, the respondents' right to occupy the premises ended on that date, and they have no legal basis to remain. The applicants, as trustees and owners, are entitled to vacant possession and eviction of the respondents.

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Paulus Breytenbach NO; Applicant: Lenza Clarissa Breytenbach NO; Applicant: Casper Dippenaar NO; Respondent: Abdul Wehab Mohammed Ahmed; Respondent: Melati Ersulo Dubiyo; Respondent: Hermanus Lambertus Botha
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 July 2007
Case Number
1676/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; costs awarded against first and second respondents.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Eviction, Sublease Rights, Termination of Lease, Possession of Premises
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Sublease Rights Termination of Lease Possession of Premises

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Paulus Breytenbach NO

Applicant

Lenza Clarissa Breytenbach NO

Applicant

Casper Dippenaar NO

Applicant

Abdul Wehab Mohammed Ahmed

Respondent

Melati Ersulo Dubiyo

Respondent

Hermanus Lambertus Botha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents' right to occupy the premises has validly terminated.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a right to possess the premises and evict the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the sublessor could validly sub-sublet the premises to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sublessor, Mr Botha, could not confer greater rights to occupation than he himself held. When Mr Botha's sublease terminated, so did the sub-sublease with the first and second respondents. Although there was an oral extension of the sublease, it was common cause that this terminated on 30 November 2006. Therefore, the respondents' right to occupy the premises ended on that date, and they have no legal basis to remain. The applicants, as trustees and owners, are entitled to vacant possession and eviction of the respondents.

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; costs awarded against first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are ordered to vacate the premises at 134 Klopper Street, Rustenburg within five days of this order.
  • Should the first and second respondents not vacate within five days, the Sheriff is authorised to evict them and any other person occupying the premises.