Rooth v Hanley (A187/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 637 (28 June 2018)

Rooth v Hanley (A187/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 637 (28 June 2018)

The court found that both the Option Agreement and the Lease of Immovable Property Agreement contained valid and enforceable non-variation clauses, precluding any oral variation or waiver unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties. The respondent was contractually obliged to pay occupational rental of R20,000.00 per month under the Option Agreement and R25,000.00 per month under the Lease Agreement, including the two-month notice period. The respondent only paid R15,000.00 per month for the first period and R30,833.00 for the lease period, resulting in arrears of R15,000.00 and R44,167.00 respectively. The court held that neither the Consumer Protection Act nor the National...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 637
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Dirk Rooth; Respondent: Craig Hanley
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Case Number
A187/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Magistrates Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Judgment of the court a quo set aside and substituted with judgment in favour of the appellant for both claims.
Judges
F. Diedericks, E.M. Kubushi
Legal Topics
Lease of Immovable Property, Option Agreement, Non Variation Clause, Consumer Protection Act, National Credit Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease of Immovable Property Option Agreement Non Variation Clause Consumer Protection Act National Credit Act

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Dirk Rooth

Appellant

Craig Hanley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Magistrates Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for arrear occupational rental under the Option Agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable for arrear rental under the Lease of Immovable Property Agreement, including the two-month notice period.
  3. 3 Whether the non-variation clauses in both agreements are valid and enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the Option Agreement and the Lease of Immovable Property Agreement contained valid and enforceable non-variation clauses, precluding any oral variation or waiver unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties. The respondent was contractually obliged to pay occupational rental of R20,000.00 per month under the Option Agreement and R25,000.00 per month under the Lease Agreement, including the two-month notice period. The respondent only paid R15,000.00 per month for the first period and R30,833.00 for the lease period, resulting in arrears of R15,000.00 and R44,167.00 respectively. The court held that neither the Consumer Protection Act nor the National...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Judgment of the court a quo set aside and substituted with judgment in favour of the appellant for both claims.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted against the respondent in the amount of R15,000.00 for Claim 1.
  • Interest on R15,000.00 at the prescribed rate from 1 October 2013 to date of payment.