Venter and Another v Els and Another (3639/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 83; 2024 (4) SA 305 (WCC) (18 March 2024)

Venter and Another v Els and Another (3639/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 83; 2024 (4) SA 305 (WCC) (18 March 2024)

The court found that the applicants do not lease out property in the ordinary course of business, but only temporarily while deciding on their permanent relocation. The lease agreement was not part of a continual enterprise to derive income, and thus the Consumer Protection Act does not apply. The three-month notice clause was valid and binding, and the notice given on 21 December 2023 validly cancelled the lease agreement with effect from 31 March 2024. The application was correctly brought as urgent, as substantial redress would not be afforded if heard in the ordinary course. The respondent and all those holding title under him are directed to vacate the property by 31 March 2024.

Citation
[2024] ZAWCHC 83
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Wouter Venter; Applicant: Melanie Christina Venter; Respondent: Johann Els; Respondent: Stellenbosch Municipality
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2024
Case Number
3639/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted. The three-month notice validly cancelled the lease agreement. Respondent ordered to vacate by 31 March 2024. Costs awarded against respondent on attorney and own client scale.
Judges
Slingers
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Fixed Term Lease, Urgent Application, Early Termination, Ordinary Course of Business
Land and Property Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Fixed Term Lease Urgent Application Early Termination Ordinary Course of Business

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Wouter Venter

Applicant

Melanie Christina Venter

Applicant

Johann Els

Respondent

Stellenbosch Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was correctly brought as an urgent application under Rule 6(12).
  2. 2 Whether section 14(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act overrides the early termination clause in the lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the lease agreement was concluded in the ordinary course of business and thus subject to the CPA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants do not lease out property in the ordinary course of business, but only temporarily while deciding on their permanent relocation. The lease agreement was not part of a continual enterprise to derive income, and thus the Consumer Protection Act does not apply. The three-month notice clause was valid and binding, and the notice given on 21 December 2023 validly cancelled the lease agreement with effect from 31 March 2024. The application was correctly brought as urgent, as substantial redress would not be afforded if heard in the ordinary course. The respondent and all those holding title under him are directed to vacate the property by 31 March 2024.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The three-month notice validly cancelled the lease agreement. Respondent ordered to vacate by 31 March 2024. Costs awarded against respondent on attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • Applicants' non-compliance with time periods, service, forms, and procedures prescribed by the Rules of Court is condoned; application heard as urgent under Rule 6(12).
  • Section 29(2) of the lease agreement is valid and binding on the respondent.