Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Azrapart (Pty) Limited v Huseyin (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/5357) [2024] ZAGPJHC 874 (9 September 2024)
Summary judgment was granted in a commercial lease dispute. The court rejected rectification and public-policy defences, but treated some post-vacation consumption charges as not liquid.
Picnoord Kitchen and Another v Lynx Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/054493) [2024] ZAGPJHC 712; 2024 (6) SA 599 (GJ) (8 July 2024)
The court found that the applicants are entitled to the protection of the suspension rule, which maintains the status quo pending the outcome of an appeal. The respondents' execution of the eviction order during the period allowed for noting an appeal was intended to deprive the applicants of this protection. The requirements for a mandatory interlocutory interdict were satisfied: the applicants demonstrated a prima facie right to remain in the premises, a well-grounded apprehension of ongoing irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured reinstatement. The respondents' reliance o…
Source excerpt
Vela v Dos Santos (A3061/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 123 (28 March 2019)
The court held that the respondent was entitled to cancel the lease agreement due to the appellant's material breach in failing to provide full occupation of the premises, as required by the lease and common law. Clause 22, which purported to exclude cancellation, was found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable, as it conflicted with public policy and the Rental Housing Act. The respondent gave reasonable notice to remedy the breach, which the appellant failed to do. The inspection conducted by the respondent's representative and the appellant's housekeeper was deemed sufficient, and the a…
Source excerpt
Lewray Investments (Pty) Limited and Another v Mthunzi and Others (2018/15129) [2018] ZAGPJHC 432 (23 May 2018)
The court found that the applicants were entitled to bring an urgent eviction application under section 4 of the PIE Act, as section 5 does not exclude such applications. The respondents, having been lawfully given notice to vacate and with the Tribunal confirming the validity of the notice, were deemed unlawful occupiers. The applicants' offer of alternative accommodation negated the risk of homelessness, and the respondents' demands for rental remission and undertakings regarding subdivision were without merit. The eviction was held to be just and equitable, with sufficient time granted for…
Source excerpt
Hencetrade 15 (Pty) Ltd v Tudor Hotel Brasserie & Bar (Pty) Ltd (15275/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 54 (16 May 2016)
The court found that there was no reasonable prospect that the Supreme Court of Appeal would overturn the judgment, even if it reconsidered the approach in Pilco Investments and adopted the reasoning in Thompson v Scholtz. The respondent's reliance on the exceptio non adimpleti contractus was irreconcilable with the reasoning in Thompson, which favoured the remission of rental principle. The respondent would still have been in arrears on the reduced rental, and the lease was effectively amended to exclude the third floor. Therefore, the respondent had no valid defence to resist eviction or pa…
Source excerpt
Dormell Properties 282 BK v Edulyn (Edms) Bpk and Another (A150/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 244 (27 November 2012)
The court found that the appellant was entitled to cancel the lease agreement and evict the first respondent due to the respondent's material breach in failing to pay rental and utilities while remaining in occupation and trading. The general terms and conditions were not incorporated into the lease agreement as both parties had not signed them, and the original lease agreement remained valid. The defence of lis pendens was rejected because the magistrate's court action concerned arrear rental, not eviction, and thus the causes of action were distinct. The court accepted that the first respon…
Source excerpt
Explore more
