Lewis T/A Lewis Properties v Boudjemaa (2014/40973) [2015] ZAGPJHC 81 (15 May 2015)

Lewis T/A Lewis Properties v Boudjemaa (2014/40973) [2015] ZAGPJHC 81 (15 May 2015)

The court found that the respondent's defences were without merit. The alleged oral agreement was precluded by the express 'no variation except in writing' clause in the lease, which is enforceable as a matter of public policy and confirmed by precedent. The respondent failed to pay rent, and the applicant lawfully cancelled the lease. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act does not apply to commercial premises, rendering that defence irrelevant. The respondent's counterclaim was not formulated and could not be entertained. The respondent's applications for postponement and to give viva voce evidence were dismissed as lacking substance and prospects of success. The applicant is entitled...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 81
Parties
Applicant: Alan Lewis t/a Lewis Properties; Respondent: Lyes Boudjemaa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2015
Case Number
2014/40973
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application for eviction granted; respondent to vacate premises within 14 court days; costs awarded to applicant on attorney and client scale.
Judges
B A Mashile
Legal Topics
Commercial Lease, Eviction, No Variation Clause, Oral Agreement, Attorney and Client Costs
Land and Property Civil Procedure Commercial Lease Eviction No Variation Clause Oral Agreement Attorney and Client Costs

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Lewis t/a Lewis Properties

Applicant

Lyes Boudjemaa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is legally entitled to evict the respondent from the premises due to breach of the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's alleged oral agreement and counterclaim constitute valid defences to eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act applies to commercial premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's defences were without merit. The alleged oral agreement was precluded by the express 'no variation except in writing' clause in the lease, which is enforceable as a matter of public policy and confirmed by precedent. The respondent failed to pay rent, and the applicant lawfully cancelled the lease. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act does not apply to commercial premises, rendering that defence irrelevant. The respondent's counterclaim was not formulated and could not be entertained. The respondent's applications for postponement and to give viva voce evidence were dismissed as lacking substance and prospects of success. The applicant is entitled...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction granted; respondent to vacate premises within 14 court days; costs awarded to applicant on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is evicted from the premises and must vacate within 14 court days of the date of judgment.
  • If the respondent does not vacate within 14 days, the Sheriff is authorized to carry out the eviction by removing the respondent and all persons occupying through or under him.