Marais N.O. and Others v Kondos (5192/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 2 (9 January 2014)

Marais N.O. and Others v Kondos (5192/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 2 (9 January 2014)

The court found that urgency was established as the trust needed to provide vacant possession to a new tenant and only became entitled to act once the respondent was in unlawful occupation. There was no undue delay in bringing the application. The respondent's version of a six-month oral lease was unsupported by evidence and correspondence, and his assertions were inconsistent with his conduct and communications. The trust's version of a month-to-month oral lease was accepted, and the respondent was aware that he was required to vacate by 30 November 2013. The respondent's alleged dispute of fact was not genuine or bona fide and was rejected on the papers. The trust was entitled to...

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 2
Parties
Applicant: Charl Marais N.O.; Applicant: Carina Marais N.O.; Applicant: Johannes Willem Marais N.O.; Respondent: Georgios Kondos
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 January 2014
Case Number
5192/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application granted. Relief sought in prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of motion is ordered.
Judges
Lekale
Legal Topics
Eviction, Oral Lease Agreement, Urgent Motion, Termination of Lease, Condonation, Dispute of Fact
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Oral Lease Agreement Urgent Motion Termination of Lease Condonation Dispute of Fact

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charl Marais N.O.

Applicant

Carina Marais N.O.

Applicant

Johannes Willem Marais N.O.

Applicant

Georgios Kondos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard as an urgent matter.
  2. 2 Whether a genuine dispute of fact exists regarding the nature and duration of the lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the trust was entitled to terminate the respondent's occupation and seek eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that urgency was established as the trust needed to provide vacant possession to a new tenant and only became entitled to act once the respondent was in unlawful occupation. There was no undue delay in bringing the application. The respondent's version of a six-month oral lease was unsupported by evidence and correspondence, and his assertions were inconsistent with his conduct and communications. The trust's version of a month-to-month oral lease was accepted, and the respondent was aware that he was required to vacate by 30 November 2013. The respondent's alleged dispute of fact was not genuine or bona fide and was rejected on the papers. The trust was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Relief sought in prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of motion is ordered.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted to the applicants for non-compliance with prescribed court rules regarding form, process, and time periods for service; the application is heard as an urgent application under Rule 6(12).
  • The respondent is ordered to immediately vacate the property known as Erf 156 Kroonstad, also known as 41 President Street, Kroonstad, Free State Province.