THE
HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
Matsapha
Properties (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
V
Matsapha
Knitwear (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Civ.
Trial No. 1445/99
CORAM
SAPIRE, CJ
FOR
APPLICANT MR. L. KHUMALO
FOR
RESPONDENT MR. MOTSA
JUDGMENT
The
applicant has applied for the ejectment of the respondent from
property owned by the applicant. The applicant and the respondent
entered into a written agreement of lease in October 1996. The
agreement expired after a period of 2 years namely October 1998 and
has not been renewed by the parties. The applicant however presented
the respondent with another lease and proposed that a new lease be
entered into on the basis and terms of the draft which was submitted
to the respondent. The respondent has not signed the lease or
suggested any terms which varying those proposed which he would be
prepared to sign.
The
respondent has continued in occupation and has apparently been paying
amounts in respect of such occupation. It is quite clear however that
no lease for any fixed period has been entered into.
On
these facts alone the applicant is entitled for an order for
ejectment and such an order would have been granted immediately but
for two factors which required consideration.
In
argument the respondent's legal representative made a plea for a
period within which the order for ejectment if granted should be
suspended in order to enable the respondent to make appropriate
arrangements to relocate. I questioned whether the court had the
power to make such an order and in the absence of any submissions
from either side I have conducted my own research into this matter
and have come to the conclusion that such a power would only exist if
there was a putative lease between the parties. On the facts of this
case and the correspondence which is passed it is being made quite
clear that there is no putative lease. On the other hand amounts
equivalent to rental have been paid and accepted. This however is
clearly on the basis that it was subject to a lease being entered
into and was only to serve as an interim arrangement while
negotiations for the lease were pending.
In
view of the foregoing there seems to be no valid resistance to the
order for ejectment and I accordingly order that :-
The
respondent be ejected from the premises described as a factory on
Lot 491 at the corner of 13th street and Usuthu Crescent, Matsapha
Industrial Sites together with all other persons as may be occupying
through or under the respondent.
The
respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.
S.
W.
SAPIRE,
CJ
