CCT57/11

[2012] ZACC 2

2012 (3) SA 531 (CC)

2012 (5) BCLR 449 (CC)

Cameron J Majority judgment

Zondo AJ dissenting judgment

Froneman J separate judgment

13 March 2012

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3648

Application for leave to appeal against the SCA judgment: Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd 2011 (5) SA 19 (SCA). The case was first heard in the South Gauteng High Court: Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd v Maphango and Others Case No 22346/09, 7 May 2010, unreported.

Application for leave to appeal concerning evictions arising from a rental dispute between tenants of a Johannesburg apartment building and their landlord. The question that arose was whether the landlord was entitled to exercise the bare power of termination in the leases for the sole purpose of securing higher rentals. The majority found that the Rental Housing Tribunal is empowered to determine whether a landlord committed an “unfair practice” under section 13(1) of the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999, and that determination is pertinent to “all the relevant circumstances” to be considered when granting an eviction order in terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution. It held that the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal gave insufficient weight to the possibility that the Tribunal might have found that the termination of the leases amounted to an “unfair practice” under the Act and was thus unlawful. This Court therefore granted leave to appeal, but held over final determination of the appeal to allow both parties until 2 May 2012 to bring suitable proceedings before the Tribunal. It also granted the parties leave to apply to this Court following the Tribunal’s decision. If the parties chose not to lodge a complaint with the Tribunal, the appeal would be dismissed with costs. In a separate concurrence, Froneman J held that the Rental Housing Act must apply, because courts are obliged to consider any relevant statutes when deciding whether a lease may be cancelled. In a dissenting judgment, Zondo AJ held that remittance to the Tribunal would be unfair to the landlord because the tenants had not adequately pleaded the “unfair practice” issue. Majority: Cameron J (Moseneke DCJ, Froneman J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Yacoob J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring). Separate Concurrence: Froneman J (Yacoob J concurring). Dissent: Zondo AJ (Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J concurring).