Ferreira v Q No More (Pty) Ltd and Another (35035 /2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 48 (8 March 2013)

Ferreira v Q No More (Pty) Ltd and Another (35035 /2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 48 (8 March 2013)

The court found that although the lease agreement contained a suspensive condition requiring a suretyship document, the conduct of both the applicant and the second respondent indicated that they intended the lease to be operative from 1 August 2008. Both parties accepted rental and allowed occupation without...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Pereira Michael Sergio Ferreira; Respondent: Q No More (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Calicom Trading II (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2013
Case Number
35035 /2012
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S Mia
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Suspensive Condition, Suretyship, Contract Interpretation, Waiver and Estoppel
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Suspensive Condition Suretyship Contract Interpretation Waiver and Estoppel

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pereira Michael Sergio Ferreira

Applicant

Q No More (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Calicom Trading II (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement between the first and second respondent is void ab initio due to non-fulfilment of a suspensive condition.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the parties amounted to a waiver of the suspensive condition regarding the suretyship document.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a declaratory order that the lease agreement is void.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the lease agreement contained a suspensive condition requiring a suretyship document, the conduct of both the applicant and the second respondent indicated that they intended the lease to be operative from 1 August 2008. Both parties accepted rental and allowed occupation without demanding the suretyship document or cancelling the lease. The applicant relied on the lease agreement to claim rental and to seek eviction, demonstrating acceptance of its validity. The court held that interpreting the contract to render it void would be contrary to the parties' conduct and established principles of contract interpretation. Accordingly, the application for a...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs.