PREMISES LEASED FOR PURPOSES OUTSIDE ZONING ALLOWANCE: IS THE AGREEMENT VOID?
Swart v Bergh N.O and Others (A79/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 64 (25 March 2022)
The answer to the above was in the affirmative, in this judgment, and the landlord was precluded from claiming arrear rental and municipal costs from the tenant based on the lease agreement. However, as the court was at pains to point out, it is not in all instances that invalidity follows when conduct contravenes a law and will depend on the provisions involved: Was it the intention to trigger a penalty or was it the intention that the conduct and agreement be considered void? Generally, a lease agreement for use of premises contrary to zoning allowances will be void. Don’t risk this consequence and consult STBB when detailing your lease provisions.
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
REDUCING GRAZING LAND OF FARM OCCUPIER: IS THIS EVICTION BY OTHER MEANS?
Loskop Landgoed Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Others v Petrus Moeleso and Others (390/2021) [2022] ZASCA 53 (12 April 2022)
In general terms, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (‘ESTA’) gives people who lived on someone else’s land since 4 February 1997 with permission from the owner, a secure legal right to carry on living there. The occupiers in this matter held such rights and also had an agreement with the farm owner that they could graze some cattle in certain camps. When the camps became overgrazed, the farm owner moved the cattle to another camp, without the consent of the occupants. Could this constitute eviction of the occupiers ‘via a back door’, as claimed, or was this a simple case of spoliation of possession?
