Lobelia Investments (Pty) Ltd v RTT Group (Pty) Ltd (9837/2014) [2016] ZAKZDHC 21 (23 May 2016)

Lobelia Investments (Pty) Ltd v RTT Group (Pty) Ltd (9837/2014) [2016] ZAKZDHC 21 (23 May 2016)

The court found that a valid lease agreement existed between the parties, both orally and in writing, and that the defendant admitted the written agreement as the sole and entire agreement. The defendant's cancellation of the lease was invalid because it failed to comply with the breach and notice provisions stipulated in clause 10 of the agreement (lex commissoria). Clause 20.3 did not override the notice requirements. The plaintiff was entitled to arrear rental for the period February 2014 to July 2014, as the lease remained valid until terminated by the plaintiff with effect from 31 July 2014. The plaintiff was also entitled to damages for the months of February and March 2015, as the...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZDHC 21
Parties
Plaintiff: Lobelia Investments (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: RTT Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2016
Case Number
9837/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant held liable for arrear rental and damages. Costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
Steyn
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Damages, Lex Commissoria, Repudiation
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Breach of Contract Specific Performance Damages Lex Commissoria +1 more

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

Parties

Lobelia Investments (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

RTT Group (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the parties conclude a valid lease agreement.
  2. 2 Was the lease agreement validly cancelled by the defendant on 3 February 2014.
  3. 3 Did the defendant's purported cancellation constitute repudiation, and was the plaintiff entitled to claim specific performance and subsequently cancel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a valid lease agreement existed between the parties, both orally and in writing, and that the defendant admitted the written agreement as the sole and entire agreement. The defendant's cancellation of the lease was invalid because it failed to comply with the breach and notice provisions stipulated in clause 10 of the agreement (lex commissoria). Clause 20.3 did not override the notice requirements. The plaintiff was entitled to arrear rental for the period February 2014 to July 2014, as the lease remained valid until terminated by the plaintiff with effect from 31 July 2014. The plaintiff was also entitled to damages for the months of February and March 2015, as the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant held liable for arrear rental and damages. Costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment against the defendant for payment of arrear rental of R356 090.40.
  • Interest on the arrear rental at the prescribed rate of 15.5% per annum a tempora morae until date of payment.