Hamman and Another v Kotze (21616/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 46 (22 April 2016)

Hamman and Another v Kotze (21616/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 46 (22 April 2016)

The respondent's occupation of unit 4 is unlawful as there was no valid sub-lease agreement between him and the first applicant. The lease agreement between the first and second applicant expressly prohibited sub-letting without written consent, which was neither requested nor granted. The respondent's version regarding the existence of a sub-lease was inconsistent, fabricated, and contradicted by independent evidence. The respondent failed to plead estoppel with the required precision and did not establish the necessary elements. The factual disputes raised by the respondent were not genuine, and his version was rejected as untenable. The applicants are entitled to an eviction order as...

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Nicolene Hamman; Applicant: Bertus Petrus van der Merwe; Respondent: Albertus Barend Kotzé
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Case Number
21616/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Eviction Application After Joinder and Exchange of Affidavits
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the respondent; respondent ordered to vacate the premises by 30 April 2016; costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
Riley
Legal Topics
Eviction, Sub Letting, Lease Agreement, Estoppel, Factual Dispute Resolution
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Sub Letting Lease Agreement Estoppel Factual Dispute Resolution

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicolene Hamman

Applicant

Bertus Petrus van der Merwe

Applicant

Albertus Barend Kotzé

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Eviction Application After Joinder and Exchange of Affidavits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to occupy unit 4 at 14 Van Riebeeck Street, Rawsonville.
  2. 2 Whether a valid sub-lease agreement existed between the first applicant and the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was in the employ of the first applicant or operating his own business.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's occupation of unit 4 is unlawful as there was no valid sub-lease agreement between him and the first applicant. The lease agreement between the first and second applicant expressly prohibited sub-letting without written consent, which was neither requested nor granted. The respondent's version regarding the existence of a sub-lease was inconsistent, fabricated, and contradicted by independent evidence. The respondent failed to plead estoppel with the required precision and did not establish the necessary elements. The factual disputes raised by the respondent were not genuine, and his version was rejected as untenable. The applicants are entitled to an eviction order as...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the respondent; respondent ordered to vacate the premises by 30 April 2016; costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent is evicted from unit 4, 14 Van Riebeeck Street, Rawsonville.
  • The respondent must vacate the premises by no later than 16h00 on 30 April 2016.