Rustenburg and Another v Gordon (457/90) [1992] ZASCA 109 (1 June 1992)

Rustenburg and Another v Gordon (457/90) [1992] ZASCA 109 (1 June 1992)

The majority (Nestadt JA, Botha JA concurring) held that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that an oral agreement for a one-year lease was reached at the November 1987 meeting. The evidence presented by both sides was mutually destructive, and the probabilities did not favour the appellants' version. The magistrate's reliance on certain factors was found to be misplaced, and the respondent's conduct was consistent with his understanding of a monthly tenancy. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The minority (Van Coller AJA) found the probabilities favoured the appellants, holding it improbable that no mention of the lease period was made, and that the appellants acted...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 109
Parties
Appellant: Janet May Rusteburg; Appellant: Marilyn Homan; Respondent: Peter Ronald Lorimer Gordon
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1992
Case Number
457/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Botha, Nestadt, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Oral Lease Agreement, Duration of Tenancy, Credibility of Witnesses, Mitigation of Damages
Land and Property Civil Procedure Oral Lease Agreement Duration of Tenancy Credibility of Witnesses Mitigation of Damages

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

Janet May Rusteburg

Appellant

Marilyn Homan

Appellant

Peter Ronald Lorimer Gordon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement was reached at the November 1987 meeting for a lease of one year.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants discharged the onus of proving the duration of the lease.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants could have mitigated their damages by letting or selling the property earlier.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Nestadt JA, Botha JA concurring) held that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that an oral agreement for a one-year lease was reached at the November 1987 meeting. The evidence presented by both sides was mutually destructive, and the probabilities did not favour the appellants' version. The magistrate's reliance on certain factors was found to be misplaced, and the respondent's conduct was consistent with his understanding of a monthly tenancy. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The minority (Van Coller AJA) found the probabilities favoured the appellants, holding it improbable that no mention of the lease period was made, and that the appellants acted...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.