Makah v Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd; Ngolo v Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd (A325/2016; A326/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 142; 2018 (3) SA 241 (WCC) (16 May 2017)

Makah v Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd; Ngolo v Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd (A325/2016; A326/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 142; 2018 (3) SA 241 (WCC) (16 May 2017)

The court held that section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act applies only to fixed-term contracts and not to month-to-month or indefinite leases. The lease agreements in question were month-to-month and thus not subject to the statutory 20 business day notice period for cancellation. The respondent lawfully cancelled the leases after the appellants breached their obligations and failed to remedy the breaches despite settlement agreements. The notices of cancellation were clear and unequivocal. The appellants’ arguments regarding the existence of a tacit lease agreement and revival of the leases were rejected due to lack of evidence. As the appellants had no lawful title to...

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 142
Parties
Appellant: Eric Mongoso Makah; Appellant: Idris Kwete Ngolo; Respondent: Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 May 2017
Case Number
A325/2016; A326/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Goodwood Magistrate’s Court Eviction Orders
Outcome
Both appeals are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Henney, Salie-Hlophe
Legal Topics
Residential Lease, Eviction, Consumer Protection Act, Unlawful Occupation, Notice of Cancellation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Residential Lease Eviction Consumer Protection Act Unlawful Occupation Notice of Cancellation

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Mongoso Makah

Appellant

Idris Kwete Ngolo

Appellant

Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Goodwood Magistrate’s Court Eviction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreements were validly cancelled by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the Consumer Protection Act required a 20 business day notice period for cancellation of month-to-month leases.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act and thus subject to eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act applies only to fixed-term contracts and not to month-to-month or indefinite leases. The lease agreements in question were month-to-month and thus not subject to the statutory 20 business day notice period for cancellation. The respondent lawfully cancelled the leases after the appellants breached their obligations and failed to remedy the breaches despite settlement agreements. The notices of cancellation were clear and unequivocal. The appellants’ arguments regarding the existence of a tacit lease agreement and revival of the leases were rejected due to lack of evidence. As the appellants had no lawful title to...

Court Disposition

Both appeals are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal under case number A325/16 is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal under case number A326/16 is dismissed with costs.