De Sousa v Vermaak and Another (11321/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 120 (15 May 2013)

De Sousa v Vermaak and Another (11321/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 120 (15 May 2013)

The court found that the First Respondent breached the sub-lease agreement by transferring occupation of the premises to the Second Respondent without the Applicant's written consent, contrary to Clause 9. The Applicant lawfully cancelled the sub-lease after giving proper notice and opportunity to remedy the breach. The Second Respondent's occupation was unauthorized, and the alleged new lease with the City Council was not substantiated. The counter-application for cession and retention of improvements lacked merit, as improvements were made without consent and the only remedy was to restore the property to its original state. The Applicant was entitled to cancellation of the sub-lease...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 120
Parties
Applicant: A A G De Sousa; Respondent: P J Vermaak; Respondent: Y Weng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2013
Case Number
11321/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; sub-lease cancelled and eviction ordered; counter-application dismissed.
Judges
H J De Vos
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Cancellation, Sublease Rights, Breach of Contract
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Cancellation Sublease Rights Breach of Contract

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A A G De Sousa

Applicant

P J Vermaak

Respondent

Y Weng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sub-lease agreement between the Applicant and First Respondent was lawfully cancelled.
  2. 2 Whether the First and Second Respondents are unlawfully occupying the property.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the Respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Respondent breached the sub-lease agreement by transferring occupation of the premises to the Second Respondent without the Applicant's written consent, contrary to Clause 9. The Applicant lawfully cancelled the sub-lease after giving proper notice and opportunity to remedy the breach. The Second Respondent's occupation was unauthorized, and the alleged new lease with the City Council was not substantiated. The counter-application for cession and retention of improvements lacked merit, as improvements were made without consent and the only remedy was to restore the property to its original state. The Applicant was entitled to cancellation of the sub-lease...

Court Disposition

Application granted; sub-lease cancelled and eviction ordered; counter-application dismissed.

Orders

  • The agreement of sub-lease concluded between the Applicant and the First Respondent on 21 July 2005 is declared cancelled and no longer of any force or effect.
  • The First and Second Respondents and all persons in occupation of 164 Bloed Street, Pretoria, are to vacate the property within 7 days of the granting of this order.