Pritchard Properties (Pty) Ltd. v Koulis (3) (324/84) [1985] ZASCA 147; [1986] 2 All SA 82 (A) (2 December 1985)

Pritchard Properties (Pty) Ltd. v Koulis (3) (324/84) [1985] ZASCA 147; [1986] 2 All SA 82 (A) (2 December 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 4 of the lease agreement, when interpreted as part of the entire contract, was clear and unambiguous. The clause divided breaches into four distinct groups, with the seven-day notice requirement applying only to breaches of 'other conditions' and not to the failure to pay rent on the due date. The deletion of the word 'latter' and its initialling by the parties indicated unequivocally that the word was to form no part of the contract, but did not create ambiguity or extend the notice requirement to non-payment of rent. The contract provided specific payment dates for rent and other sums, and there was no indication that the lessor was obliged...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 147
Parties
Appellant: Pritchard Properties (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Basil Koulis
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 1985
Case Number
324/84
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Motion Proceedings; Leave to Appeal Granted by Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; application for declaratory orders dismissed; counter-application for ejectment granted.
Judges
Jansen, Kotzé, Trengove, Boshoff, Cillié
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement Interpretation, Ejectment, Contractual Notice Requirements
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Interpretation Ejectment Contractual Notice Requirements

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pritchard Properties (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Basil Koulis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Motion Proceedings; Leave to Appeal Granted by Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 4 of the lease agreement required the lessor to give the lessee seven days' notice to remedy non-payment of rent before converting the lease and giving notice to vacate.
  2. 2 Whether the deletion of the word 'latter' in clause 4 affected the interpretation of the notice requirement for non-payment of rent.
  3. 3 Whether the declaratory orders granted in the court a quo were correct in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 4 of the lease agreement, when interpreted as part of the entire contract, was clear and unambiguous. The clause divided breaches into four distinct groups, with the seven-day notice requirement applying only to breaches of 'other conditions' and not to the failure to pay rent on the due date. The deletion of the word 'latter' and its initialling by the parties indicated unequivocally that the word was to form no part of the contract, but did not create ambiguity or extend the notice requirement to non-payment of rent. The contract provided specific payment dates for rent and other sums, and there was no indication that the lessor was obliged...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; application for declaratory orders dismissed; counter-application for ejectment granted.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The counter-application succeeds and orders are made in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Notice of Counter-Application.