Soleprops 145 CC v Ndlovu and Others (1674/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 85 (22 August 2023)
The court found that Mr Ndlovu was in breach of both the lease and sale agreements, having failed to pay rental and the purchase price. The deed of sale was concluded after the lease agreement, and the two cannot run concurrently; the sale agreement superseded the lease. Soleprops properly cancelled the sale agreement, and Mr Ndlovu failed to respond substantively to the cancellation notices, inferring acquiescence. Even if the lease agreement was revived, Mr Ndlovu has not complied with its terms and has provided no indication of future compliance. The occupation by Mr Ndlovu and the second respondent is unlawful. The requirements of the PIE Act have been met, and no defence relevant to...
- Citation
- [2023] ZAKZPHC 85
- Parties
- Applicant: Soleprops 145 CC; Respondent: Mandla Felix Ndlovu; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers of 3[...] B[...] Street, Pietermaritzburg; Respondent: Msunduzi Municipality
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 22 August 2023
- Case Number
- 1674/22P
- Procedural Posture
- Eviction Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Eviction order granted against first and second respondents and all those occupying through the first respondent; costs awarded to applicant including senior counsel costs.
- Judges
- Nicholson AJ
- Legal Topics
- Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Lease Cancellation, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Soleprops 145 CC
Applicant
Mandla Felix Ndlovu
Respondent
The Unlawful Occupiers of 3[...] B[...] Street, Pietermaritzburg
Respondent
Msunduzi Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lease agreement between Soleprops and Mr Ndlovu was validly cancelled.
- 2 Whether the occupation of the property by Mr Ndlovu and the second respondent is unlawful.
- 3 Whether the requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) have been met for the eviction of the second respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Mr Ndlovu was in breach of both the lease and sale agreements, having failed to pay rental and the purchase price. The deed of sale was concluded after the lease agreement, and the two cannot run concurrently; the sale agreement superseded the lease. Soleprops properly cancelled the sale agreement, and Mr Ndlovu failed to respond substantively to the cancellation notices, inferring acquiescence. Even if the lease agreement was revived, Mr Ndlovu has not complied with its terms and has provided no indication of future compliance. The occupation by Mr Ndlovu and the second respondent is unlawful. The requirements of the PIE Act have been met, and no defence relevant to...
Court Disposition
Eviction order granted against first and second respondents and all those occupying through the first respondent; costs awarded to applicant including senior counsel costs.
Orders
- The first respondent and the second respondent, and all those occupying through the first respondent, are ordered to vacate the property described as Portion 11 of Erf 2[...] Pietermaritzburg, situated at 3[...] B[...] Street, Pietermaritzburg within six months of the granting of this order.
- Should the first and second respondents, and all those occupying through the first respondent, fail to vacate the property within the timeframe, the Sheriff or her duly appointed Deputy, with the assistance of the South African Police Services and/or private security company, is directed to evict such persons from...
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