WD Motors (Pty) Ltd v Shell South Africa Refining (Pty) Limited and Others (5341/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 179 (17 June 2025)

WD Motors (Pty) Ltd v Shell South Africa Refining (Pty) Limited and Others (5341/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 179 (17 June 2025)

The court found that Shell breached the lease agreement by subletting a portion of the premises to Mr Diata without notifying the applicant and permitting the operation of an electronics store, which was not ancillary to a filling station. The respondents failed to provide evidence of tacit consent or to rebut the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 179
Parties
Applicant: WD Motors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Shell South Africa Refining (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Shell Downstream South Africa (Pty) Limited; Respondent: All Other Occupiers of Erf 17098 claiming title under the First Respondent
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
5341/2024
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; lease cancellation upheld; costs awarded against first and second respondents.
Judges
Daniso
Legal Topics
Eviction of Commercial Premises, Breach of Lease, Unauthorized Subletting, Maintenance Obligations, Municipal Charges, Broadcasting Act Compliance
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Eviction of Commercial Premises Breach of Lease Unauthorized Subletting Maintenance Obligations Municipal Charges Broadcasting Act Compliance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WD Motors (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Shell South Africa Refining (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Shell Downstream South Africa (Pty) Limited

Respondent

All Other Occupiers of Erf 17098 claiming title under the First Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached the lease agreement by unauthorized subletting and non-compliance with usage and maintenance clauses.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant validly cancelled the lease agreement in terms of clause 20.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents and other occupiers are liable to be evicted from the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Shell breached the lease agreement by subletting a portion of the premises to Mr Diata without notifying the applicant and permitting the operation of an electronics store, which was not ancillary to a filling station. The respondents failed to provide evidence of tacit consent or to rebut the applicant's allegations with genuine factual defences. The lease agreement expressly permitted cancellation for non-remedied breaches, irrespective of materiality. The applicant validly cancelled the lease in accordance with clause 20, and the respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises. Costs were awarded against the first and second respondents jointly and severally.

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; lease cancellation upheld; costs awarded against first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The respondents and any other business occupying the premises under the auspices of Wentzel Motors are ordered to vacate erf 17098 Bloemfontein within 60 days from the date of this order.
  • The first and second respondents shall pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, including the costs of counsel on scale C.