Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Full Sail 3 (Pty) Ltd v Tsehay Import and Export CC (4448/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 145 (14 March 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the respondent's occupation of the premises after the expiry of the written lease agreement constituted a monthly tenancy, which is terminable on one month's notice. The applicant validly terminated the lease by serving notice to the respondent's most recent email address. The respondent's defence of non-receipt was rejected, as no evidence was provided that the email address was incorrect. The respondent's expenditure on repairs did not exonerate it from payment of rental or continued occupation, and the terms of the expired written lease did not apply to the subsequent oral lease. The respondent failed to present a valid defence to the eviction application, and the applicant was entitled to an eviction order.

Court disposition

Eviction application granted; respondent ordered to vacate the premises.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to vacate Shop No 5 Aston Mansion, 178 Jeppe Street, Corner Van Brandi Street, Johannesburg.
  • The applicant is granted leave to apply for further relief if the respondent fails to comply with this order.

02

Material facts

Parties

Full Sail 3 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Adv K Naidoo

Tsehay Import and Export CC

Respondent Counsel: Adv Roberts

Amounts and remedies

  • Rental Arrears as at Date of Notice: ZAR 150,608.67
  • Value of Repairs Claimed by Respondent: ZAR 350,000
  • Monthly Rental: ZAR 15,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / Eviction Application Following Termination of Lease; Opposed Motion

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contends that the written lease expired on 31 July 2017 and was not renewed. The respondent remained in occupation on a monthly basis and is in breach of the lease by failing to pay rental and other charges, being in arrears of R150,608.67. The respondent also breached the agreement by sub-letting and making structural alterations without consent. Notice of termination was validly served via the most recent email address used by the respondent's member. The respondent is in unlawful occupation since 1 January 2021 and must be evicted.
Respondent
The respondent argues that the notice of termination was sent to the wrong address and is therefore null and void. It admits non-payment of rent for March to May 2020 due to Covid-19 but claims to have paid for June to August 2020. The premises were damaged by fire in September 2020, and the respondent spent R350,000 on repairs. It asserts that it should be exonerated from rental payments due to these repairs and that the terms of the expired written lease do not apply to the oral lease. The respondent denies any sub-letting.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Common law; referenced in Middleburg Town Council v Trans Natal Steenkamp Korporatie Bpk 1987 (2) ALL SA 244.

    A monthly tenancy is terminable on one month's notice under commercial law principles of lease.

  2. 02

    Middleburg Town Council v Trans Natal Steenkamp Korporatie Bpk 1987 (2) ALL SA 244.

    Service of notice of termination via the most recent email address used by the respondent's member is valid.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the respondent's occupation of the premises after the expiry of the written lease agreement constituted a monthly tenancy, which is terminable on one month's notice. The applicant validly terminated the lease by serving notice to the respondent's most recent email address. The respondent's defence of non-receipt was rejected, as no evidence was provided that the email address was incorrect. The respondent's expenditure on repairs did not exonerate it from payment of rental or continued occupation, and the terms of the expired written lease did not apply to the subsequent oral lease. The respondent failed to present a valid defence to the eviction application, and the applicant was entitled to an eviction order.

Obiter and limits

  • Even if the notice of termination had not been received, service of the eviction application itself constitutes sufficient notice to vacate.
  • The respondent's failure to provide proper authority for the deponent to its affidavit is a procedural defect, but the court considered the substance of the opposition due to the substantial affidavit filed.

Court disposition

Eviction application granted; respondent ordered to vacate the premises.

  • The respondent is ordered to vacate Shop No 5 Aston Mansion, 178 Jeppe Street, Corner Van Brandi Street, Johannesburg.
  • The applicant is granted leave to apply for further relief if the respondent fails to comply with this order.

Source and reliance status

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2022] ZAGPJHC 145

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 4448/2021

REPORTABLE:

NO

OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

REVISED.

14/3/2022

In the matter between:

FULL SAIL 3(PTY)

LTD

Applicant

And

TSEHAY

IMPORT AND EXPORT CC

Respondent

JUDGMENT

MAKUME, J:

[1] This is an application in terms of which the Applicant seeks an order evicting the Respondent from certain business premises situated at Shop No 5 Aston Mansion, 178 Jeppe Street, Corner Van Brandi Street, Johannesburg.

[2] The parties concluded a written lease agreement on the 5th August 2013. The duration of the lease was for a period of one year expiring on the 31st July 2014.

[3] The Respondent as it was entitled to exercised its option to renew the lease for a further three terms of 12 months each eventually expiring on the 31st July 2017 where after it was never renewed. The Respondent however, remained in occupation of the premises.

[4] On the 25th November 2020 the Applicant informed the Respondent about the termination of the lease and requested the Respondent to vacate by the 31st December 2020.

[5] The terms of the lease agreement concluded by the parties stated amongst others the following:

5.1 The Rental payable by the Respondent was the sum of R15 000.00 (Fifteen Thousand Rand) per month excluding VAT plus 50% share of any levies or other charges levied on the premises.

5.2 The Respondent would be responsible for payment of electricity, water, special sewerage and affluent charges and any other municipal services charged in respect of the premises.

5.3 The Respondent was prohibited from sub-letting the premises or any portion thereof nor to make any alterations or additions to the premises, structural or otherwise without the prior written consent of the Applicant

5.4 The Applicant would be entitled to cancel the agreement on the happening of any of the following events:

5.4.1 Failure to pay rental or any other amounts and remain in default for a period of 10 days after receipt of a notice calling for such payment.

5.4.2 Breach any other term of the agreement and remain in default for a period of 10 days after receipt of a notice calling for such breach to be remedied.

[6] The notice informing the Respondent to vacate the premises due to termination of the agreement is dated 25th November 2020. In it the Applicant’s attorneys wrote as follows:

“The Lease Agreement has been extended on several occasions, the latest of which expired during 2017.

You have occupied the premises on a monthly basis since that time you are in breach of the lease agreement in that you are in arrear with your rental and other obligations in the sum of R150 608.67 as at date hereof which amount despite demand you refuse to pay.

In addition, you are in breach of the agreement in that you are sub-letting the premises and or making structural alterations to the premise in breach of the agreement.”

[7] The letter concluded with a paragraph informing the Respondent that the lease is terminated as on the 31st December 2020 on which day the Respondent is expected to vacate the premises.

[8] The Respondent failed to vacate the premises as a result on the 2nd February2021 the Applicant launched this application. The Respondent entered appearance to defend on the 17th February 2021.

[9] It is common cause that the only members of the Respondent CC are Tsehay Sinishaw Degaga and Yosef Habbie Degaga. Mr Yosef Habbie Degaga signed the lease agreement on behalf of the Respondent. It is accordingly not correct that the deponent to the Respondent answering affidavit is a member of the Respondent he Mr Dutore Africitio Wonchaso has not attached any resolution authorising him to depose to the affidavit. His attempt to rectify this in a further affidavit does not help cure the defect. He still has not furnished any power of attorney authorising him to depose to such affidavit. Under normal circumstances this should be the end of the matter. However, seeing that a substantial opposing affidavit has been filed same cannot be ignored.

[10] In the answering affidavit the Mr Dutore says that he never received the letter informing him about the termination of the lease as it was sent to a wrong address and accordingly that the letter of termination is null and void.

[11] He continues to say and admits that for the period March 2020 to May 2020 the Respondent did not make any payment of rent due to Covid-19. They did make payment for June, July and August 2020. He then adds that on the 20th September 2020 the premises were destroyed by fire as a result they had to do repairs to the value of R350 000.00

[12] In the final analyses the Respondent says that it will be fair and equitable if they are exonerated from payment of rental due to the fact that they spent money doing repairs. They lastly say that since the written lease expired in 2017 its terms can no longer be applicable to the oral lease that took effect thereafter. He also denies that there is any sub-letting of the premises.

[13] It is trite law that under commercial law Principle of lease a tenancy in respect of which rental is payable monthly becomes terminable on one-month notice. This therefore means that the Respondent is in unlawful occupation since the 1st January 2021

[14] The statement that the notice of termination was sent to a wrong address cannot be sustained. It is the email that was used by Mr Degaga. Mr Dutore does not tell this Court whether the email to which the notice was sent does belong to the Respondent or not.

[15] The termination was valid as the notice was sent to the most recent email that Mr Degaga had used. The defence of non-receipt falls to be dismissed. Alternatively, the service of this application is also sufficient notice of termination and calls upon the Respondent to vacate (See the matter of Middleburg Town Council vs Trans Natal Steenkamp Korporatie Bpk 1987 (2) ALL SA 244.)

[16] There is no valid defence to the eviction application and in the result I hereby grant an order in the terms as per attached craft order marked “X”.

Dated at Johannesburg on this 14 day of March 2022.

M

A MAKUME

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Appearances:

DATE

OF HEARING :

15 FEBRUARY 2022

DATE OF JUDGMENT : MARCH 2022

FOR

APPLICANT :

ADV K NAIDOO

INSTRUCTED BY :

MESSRS VALLY CHAGAN & ASSOCIATES

FOR

RESPONDENT :

ADV ROBERTS

INSTRUCTED BY :

ESTATES INCORPORATED

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Middleburg Town Council v Trans Natal Steenkamp Korporatie Bpk 1987 (2) ALL SA 244

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.