Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Jardim (2621/2002) [2002] ZAFSHC 18; 2004 (1) SA 502 (O) (21 November 2002)

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Jardim (2621/2002) [2002] ZAFSHC 18; 2004 (1) SA 502 (O) (21 November 2002)

The court found that the written lease agreement contained an obvious error regarding the name of the lessor, which both parties acknowledged and did not oppose rectification. The respondent's claim of duress was rejected because the applicant was entitled under the previous agreement to give one month's notice of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZAFSHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Venancio Demasceno Jardim
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2002
Case Number
2621/2002
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application granted in full.
Judges
Van Coppenhagen, R
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Eviction, Lease Termination, Costs on Attorney and Client Scale
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rectification of Contract Eviction Lease Termination Costs on Attorney and Client Scale

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Venancio Demasceno Jardim

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written lease agreement should be rectified to reflect the correct name of the lessor.
  2. 2 Whether the cancellation of the rectified lease agreement is valid.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written lease agreement contained an obvious error regarding the name of the lessor, which both parties acknowledged and did not oppose rectification. The respondent's claim of duress was rejected because the applicant was entitled under the previous agreement to give one month's notice of termination, and the threat to terminate was not unlawful or contra bonis mores. The respondent's argument regarding unequal bargaining power was dismissed as he had previously chosen not to secure a longer lease term and thus was the architect of his own position. The court held that the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 does not...

Court Disposition

Application granted in full.

Orders

  • The written lease agreement between applicant and respondent is rectified to substitute 'Shoprite Checkers Ltd' with 'Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd' wherever it appears.
  • The cancellation of the existing lease agreement between applicant and respondent is confirmed.