Lombard and Another v Solomon an d Another (9190/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 257 (29 August 2008)

Lombard and Another v Solomon an d Another (9190/2005) [2008] ZAWCHC 257 (29 August 2008)

The court found that the handwritten portion of the lease agreement, specifically the use of the word 'will', signified the desire to sell at the termination of the lease and satisfied the legal requirements for an option. The evidence of the second plaintiff regarding her understanding of the option was not admissible to determine the legal effect of the written agreement, as the parol evidence rule applied. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the interpretation of the lease agreement and the existence of the option.

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 257
Parties
Applicant: Shaun Vernon Lombard; Applicant: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: Saliem Solomon; Respondent: Ayasha Solomon
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Case Number
9190/2005
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Meer
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Option to Purchase, Parol Evidence Rule
Land and Property Lease Agreement Option to Purchase Parol Evidence Rule

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Vernon Lombard

Applicant

Registrar of Deeds

Applicant

Saliem Solomon

Respondent

Ayasha Solomon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the handwritten portion of the lease agreement constituted an option to purchase.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of the second plaintiff regarding the absence of an option was admissible.
  3. 3 Whether another court would reach a different conclusion on the interpretation of the lease.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the handwritten portion of the lease agreement, specifically the use of the word 'will', signified the desire to sell at the termination of the lease and satisfied the legal requirements for an option. The evidence of the second plaintiff regarding her understanding of the option was not admissible to determine the legal effect of the written agreement, as the parol evidence rule applied. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the interpretation of the lease agreement and the existence of the option.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.