Soleprops 145 CC v Ndlovu and Others (1674/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 85 (22 August 2023)

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 The deed of sale was concluded after the lease agreement, and the two cannot run concurrently; the sale agreement superseded the lease.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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement between Soleprops and Mr Ndlovu was validly cancelled.
  2. 2 Whether the occupation of the property by Mr Ndlovu and the second respondent is unlawful.
  3. 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...