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
MEC for Department of Public Works v Gaeler and Another (1298/2020) [2021] ZAECMHC 27 (17 August 2021)
The High Court held that the lease had ended, the tenant remained on a month-to-month basis, and a 30-day notice validly terminated the occupation.
National Savings and Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Chimaliro and Others (26598/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 176 (24 May 2019)
The High Court held that the occupants’ lease had ended by effluxion of time, found no tacit relocation, and granted PIE eviction with eight weeks to vacate.
Transnet Soc Ltd t/a Transnet Property v Defensor Electronic Security Systems (Proprietary) Limited (535/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 119 (21 July 2016)
The High Court refused Transnet’s eviction application, finding that a new lease arrangement or tacit relocation legalised the respondent’s continued occupation.
Lot 695 Hibberdene (Pty) Limited v Coalition Trading 689 CC (414/2013) [2015] ZAKZDHC 37 (30 April 2015)
The court found that the respondent's occupation of shop 8 was not based on a valid written lease, as the document with handwritten amendments constituted a counter-offer that was never accepted by the applicant. There was no agreement on rental, and thus no lease existed. The respondent's occupation could only have been under an oral monthly tenancy, but even then, no rental was agreed, so no lease existed. If a monthly tenancy existed, it was properly terminated by service of ejectment proceedings. The respondent was not entitled to remain in occupation by virtue of tacit relocation, as the…
Source excerpt
IPS Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Johannesburg Polytech Institute (17544/14) [2014] ZAGPJHC 434 (6 November 2014)
The court found that the lease agreement expired by effluxion of time and that the notice of termination issued on 27 May 2013 was valid. The respondent's reliance on two letters from the applicant did not constitute a valid extension or variation of the lease, as the non-variation clause (Shifren principle) excluded any amendments not made in accordance with the lease procedure. The invoices and payments after expiry did not create a new lease or tacit relocation. Upon termination, the respondent became a month-to-month tenant, and the applicant was entitled to evict. The respondent's defenc…
Source excerpt
Ithala Development Finance Corporation Limited v Warsame (13452/2013) [2014] ZAKZPHC 38 (10 June 2014)
The High Court ordered eviction after finding no proven oral lease renewal and rejecting estoppel based on vague assurances and continued occupation.
Quintas Properties (Pty) Ltd v Lusitania Food Products (Pty) Ltd (1140/2013) [2014] ZAKZDHC 20 (4 June 2014)
The court found that, although the main lease and sub-lease terminated automatically on 31 January 2013, the conduct of the parties after that date—specifically, the respondent's continued occupation and payment of the exact rental amount proposed, and the applicant's acceptance of those payments without objection—gave rise to a tacit relocation of the lease. This amounted to the conclusion of a new month-to-month lease agreement between the parties. The absence of correspondence disputing the respondent's occupation or the basis for rental payments further supported the inference that both p…
Source excerpt
Devland Cash And Carry (Pty) Limited and Others v Pillay (12/38224) [2014] ZAGPJHC 66 (7 April 2014)
The court ordered eviction after finding no September 2011 lease, no proved tacit renewal, and no enforceable long lease against the first applicant.
Emfuleni Local Municipality v Khulu Media Gateway Vereeniging (Proprietary) Limited (62150/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 456 (15 November 2013)
High Court held that a municipal advertising lease and addendum had expired, rejecting tacit relocation and ordering the respondent to remove its signs.
Coad v Malan (16423/08) [2013] ZAWCHC 32 (28 February 2013)
The court found that section 38 of the Liquor Act did not apply to the agreement, as the liquor licence was held in the plaintiff's personal name and not by the close corporation. Instead, section 113 governed the transaction, permitting the transfer of the licence upon application and approval by the Liquor Board, which was subsequently obtained. The defendant's reliance on section 38 and the Klokow precedent was misplaced. Furthermore, the conduct of the parties established a tacit relocation of the agreement, as the defendant continued to operate the business, use the licence, and benefit…
Source excerpt
Explore more
