Slabbert N O & 3 Others v Ma-Afrika Hotels t/a Rivierbos Guest House (772/2021) [2022] ZASCA 152 (4 November 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, even accepting the respondent's entitlement to remission of rent during periods when trading was prohibited by Covid-19 regulations, the respondent failed to pay rent due for October, November, and December 2020. The lease agreement expressly provided for rental to be paid in advance without deduction or setoff, and the right to cancel upon non-payment was clear and unambiguous. The obligations were not reciprocal, and the Trust was entitled to enforce the cancellation clause. The respondent remained in occupation and did not pay the required rent, thus breaching the agreement. The court found that the lease was validly cancelled and the Trust was...
- Citation
- [2022] ZASCA 152
- Parties
- Appellant: Roelof Louis Barry Slabbert N O; Appellant: Joritha Welman; Appellant: Dieter Schutte Lochner N O; Appellant: Helen Ruth Kroes N O; Respondent: Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd t/a Rivierbos Guest House
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 4 November 2022
- Case Number
- 772/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; eviction order granted; determination of arrear rental remitted to high court.
- Judges
- Molemela, Makgoka, Gorven, Kgoele, Goosen
- Legal Topics
- Lease Agreement, Remission of Rent, Supervening Impossibility, Eviction, Pacta Sunt Servanda
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Roelof Louis Barry Slabbert N O
Appellant
Joritha Welman
Appellant
Dieter Schutte Lochner N O
Appellant
Helen Ruth Kroes N O
Appellant
Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd t/a Rivierbos Guest House
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Trust was entitled to cancel the lease and evict the respondent for non-payment of rent during the Covid-19 lockdown periods.
- 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to remission of rent due to supervening impossibility caused by government regulations.
- 3 Whether the cancellation clause in the lease agreement was enforceable under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, even accepting the respondent's entitlement to remission of rent during periods when trading was prohibited by Covid-19 regulations, the respondent failed to pay rent due for October, November, and December 2020. The lease agreement expressly provided for rental to be paid in advance without deduction or setoff, and the right to cancel upon non-payment was clear and unambiguous. The obligations were not reciprocal, and the Trust was entitled to enforce the cancellation clause. The respondent remained in occupation and did not pay the required rent, thus breaching the agreement. The court found that the lease was validly cancelled and the Trust was...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; eviction order granted; determination of arrear rental remitted to high court.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld with costs.
- The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with an order for eviction of the respondent from the premises.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment