Roos NO and Others v Rostberg (Pty) Limited (21108/2008) [2009] ZAWCHC 116 (12 February 2009)

Roos NO and Others v Rostberg (Pty) Limited (21108/2008) [2009] ZAWCHC 116 (12 February 2009)

The court found that the respondent's rights of occupation were derived from the unsigned written lease agreement, which had expired. After expiry, the respondent occupied the property on a monthly basis as provided for in the lease. The respondent's claim to further rights of occupation based on an alleged contract of sale was rejected, as such a contract would be invalid under Act 70/1970. The respondent's contention that consent to apply for subdivision and rezoning under Act 126/1993 conferred additional rights of occupation was also rejected due to lack of evidence. The court concluded that the respondent did not acquire any further rights of occupation beyond those provided in the...

Citation
[2009] ZAWCHC 116
Parties
Applicant: Tielman Johannes Roos N.O.; Applicant: Izak Bartlomeus van Per Vyfer N.O.; Applicant: Johan George Roos N.O.; Respondent: Rostberg (Pty) Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Case Number
21108/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Order granted in terms of prayers 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of motion.
Judges
Allie
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Rights of Occupation, Monthly Tenancy, Contract of Sale Invalidity, Subdivision and Rezoning
Land and Property Lease Agreement Rights of Occupation Monthly Tenancy Contract of Sale Invalidity Subdivision and Rezoning

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tielman Johannes Roos N.O.

Applicant

Izak Bartlomeus van Per Vyfer N.O.

Applicant

Johan George Roos N.O.

Applicant

Rostberg (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's right of occupation continued after the expiry of the unsigned written lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acquired further rights of occupation through an alleged contract of sale or by consent to apply for subdivision and rezoning.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to occupy any portion of the property beyond the leased premises after the lease expired.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's rights of occupation were derived from the unsigned written lease agreement, which had expired. After expiry, the respondent occupied the property on a monthly basis as provided for in the lease. The respondent's claim to further rights of occupation based on an alleged contract of sale was rejected, as such a contract would be invalid under Act 70/1970. The respondent's contention that consent to apply for subdivision and rezoning under Act 126/1993 conferred additional rights of occupation was also rejected due to lack of evidence. The court concluded that the respondent did not acquire any further rights of occupation beyond those provided in the...

Court Disposition

Order granted in terms of prayers 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • The respondent's rights of occupation are limited to those provided in the expired lease agreement, namely occupation on a monthly basis.
  • The respondent is not entitled to any further rights of occupation based on the alleged contract of sale or consent to apply for subdivision and rezoning.