South Africa Case Law

Bless Joe Trading CC v Ethekwini Municipality (D7596/2020)

Bless Joe Trading CC v Ethekwini Municipality (D7596/2020) [2025] ZAKZDHC 37 (11 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D7596/2020

Judge

Mathenjwa

The court found that after the termination of the lease agreement, the defendant failed to remove the displaced people from the plaintiff's tent and ablution facilities, thereby preventing the plaintiff from regaining possession. The continued occupation constituted holding over, and the defendant, as a sphere of government, was liable for the damages arising from the loss of use of the plaintiff's property. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff voluntarily refrained from taking possession was rejected, as the defendant itself admitted that it had no alternative accommodation and could…

Source excerpt

• Holding Over
• Lease Agreement Termination
• Damages For Loss Of Use
• Municipal Obligations
• Preferential Procurement
• Constitutional Right To Housing

G en M Motors CC v Mabud and Others (M496/22)

G en M Motors CC v Mabud and Others (M496/22) [2024] ZANWHC 168 (1 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M496/22

Judge

Petersen

The applicant, G en M Motors CC, is entitled to seek eviction of the respondents as it holds a valid verbal lease with the registered owner, Shalala Property. The previous written head lease expired, and the sub-lease agreement with the first respondent was void ab initio due to lack of written consent. The first respondent's reliance on a purported sale of business does not confer any independent title to the property, nor does it override the applicant's right to possession. The respondent's occupation is unlawful, and his continued presence despite a settlement agreement to vacate constitu…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Locus Standi
• Sublease Invalidity
• Holding Over
• Punitive Costs

H and F Associates CC t/a Build-It Potchefstroom v Mohbro Properties CC (CIV APP RC 03/2022)

H and F Associates CC t/a Build-It Potchefstroom v Mohbro Properties CC (CIV APP RC 03/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 147 (21 June 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP RC 03/2022

Judges

Hendricks, Scholtz

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the appellant held over the premises beyond the first week of June 2014. The evidence did not support the respondent's version of prolonged occupation, and it was improbable that the respondent would have tolerated holding over for two months without taking action. Accordingly, the damages awarded for claim 2 were unjustified. Regarding claim 3, the court held that the respondent's claim was for the objective value of performance, which is not recognised as a competent remedy under South African law for reinstate…

Source excerpt

• Lease Agreement
• Holding Over
• Damages For Breach
• Objective Value Of Performance

Bitline SA 951 CC TA Sasol Roodepoort West v Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/052612)

Bitline SA 951 CC TA Sasol Roodepoort West v Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/052612) [2024] ZAGPJHC 390 (2 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/052612

Judges

Windell, Unterhalter, Siwendu

The High Court dismissed Bitline’s appeal against interim execution pending appeal, holding that Sasol and Amrich showed exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm.

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Holding Over
• Section 18 Supreme Courts Act
• Eviction
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Irreparable Harm

Swanvest 11 (Pty) Ltd v Western Cape Provincal Minister of Transport and Public Works (921/2023)

Swanvest 11 (Pty) Ltd v Western Cape Provincal Minister of Transport and Public Works (921/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 84 (18 March 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

921/2023

Judge

P.A.L. Gamble

The High Court granted condonation for late statutory notice in a lease dispute with an organ of state, finding good cause and no unreasonable prejudice.

• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Condonation
• Lease Dispute
• Holding Over
• Damages Quantification
• Organs-of-state-notice

Vorna Valley Shopping Centre CC v Flava Pot (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/054751)

Vorna Valley Shopping Centre CC v Flava Pot (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/054751) [2024] ZAGPJHC 271 (15 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/054751

Judge

D M Fine SC

The High Court granted summary judgment for unpaid lease charges, but refused summary judgment on an unliquidated holding-over claim and postponed that part sine die.

• Summary Judgment
• Lease Agreement
• Suretyship
• Liquidated Claim
• Holding Over
• Summary-judgment

Loubser (Snr) N.O and Others v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (11890/2022)

Loubser (Snr) N.O and Others v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (11890/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 33 (9 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11890/2022

Judge

Cockrell

The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the requested documents were reasonably required for the exercise or protection of their rights as required by section 50(1)(a) of PAIA. The Trust already knew the identity of the defendant and was able to formulate its claim for holding over and damages without the requested records. The application did not fall within the exceptional circumstances where pre-action discovery under PAIA is permissible, such as identifying the correct defendant or being unable to formulate a claim without the records. The list of requested documents…

Source excerpt

• Pre Action Discovery
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Holding Over
• Unjust Enrichment
• Delictual Liability

Lisinfo Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lunem Learning Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023-052134)

Lisinfo Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lunem Learning Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023-052134) [2023] ZAGPJHC 726 (26 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-052134

Judge

Moorcroft

High Court eviction matter from commercial premises used as a school, after lease cancellation for substantial arrear rental and unpaid charges. Leave was also granted for the company’s director to appear.

• Eviction
• Commercial Lease
• Holding Over
• Representation Of Companies
• Arrear Rental
• Pre Emptive Rights

Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Roseville Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Sondela Service Station (4881/2022P)

Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Roseville Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Sondela Service Station (4881/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 105 (21 June 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

4881/2022P

Judge

ZP Nkosi

The court found that the franchise agreement between the parties expired by effluxion of time after a two-year extension, and no further agreement was concluded. The respondent's continued occupation of the premises was unlawful, and its refusal to vacate constituted holding over. The referral to arbitration under section 12B of the Petroleum Products Act was without merit, as the arbitrator cannot create a contract or override ownership rights. The applicant, as owner and successor to the franchise rights, was entitled to eviction. The respondent failed to demonstrate any unfair or unreasona…

Source excerpt

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Eviction
• Holding Over
• Petroleum Products Act
• Contractual Autonomy

MEC, Department of Public Works Eastern Cape Province v Moleshe (751/2020)

MEC, Department of Public Works Eastern Cape Province v Moleshe (751/2020) [2023] ZAECBHC 2 (31 January 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

751/2020

Judge

JGA Laing

The court held that the lease was validly terminated, rejected the rule 41A and dispute-of-fact objections, and ordered eviction from the commercial properties.

• Eviction
• Termination Of Lease
• Holding Over
• Rule 41a Non Compliance
• Commercial Property Leases
• Lease-termination