Business Aviation Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rand Airport Holdings (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Howie P, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Cloete JA and Lewis JA
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2006
• Citation: 2006 (6) SA 605 (SCA)
• Docket Number: 179/05
• Hearing Date: 04 May 2006
• Counsel: K Bailey for the appellants. E L Theron for the respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal

Brand JA:

[1] This appeal has its origin in the magistrates' court for the district of Germiston. The respondent (plaintiff) is the owner of the Rand Airport near Johannesburg. The appellants (defendants) F occupied parts of that property (the property) in terms of an oral lease agreement. Proceedings commenced when the plaintiff sought an eviction order against the defendants on the basis that the lease was a monthly tenancy, terminable on one month's notice, and that the defendants had failed to vacate the property despite proper notice having been duly given to them on its behalf. G

[2] The defendants raised two defences in the alternative. First, that the lease was not a monthly tenancy, but a long-term lease that entitled them to occupy the property for at least another five years. Alternatively that they had expended an amount of several million rand on necessary and useful improvements to the property for H which they had not been compensated and that they were consequently entitled to retain the property under an enrichment lien.

[3] The outcome of the main defence depended on issues of credibility, which the magistrate decided in favour of the plaintiff. I The alternative defence was also dismissed by the magistrate, essentially on the acceptance of the plaintiff's contention that the lien relied upon by the defendants had been abolished by two Placaeten that were promulgated by the Estates of Holland during the 17th Century. In the result, the magistrate granted an eviction order against the defendants. J

Brand JA

[4] The appeal against the magistrate's order was dismissed by the Johannesburg High Court (Goldstein J, Khampepe J concurring). Its A judgment has since been reported sub nom Business Aviation Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Rand Airport Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2006 (2) SA 95 (W). As appears from the reported judgment, Goldstein J first examined the magistrate's credibility findings underlying the rejection of the defendants' main defence of a long-term lease (in paras [4] - [10]). On this issue he decided (in para [10]) that the defendants' criticism of these credibility findings could not B be sustained. He then proceeded to consider the alternative defence, based on a right of retention arising from an improvement lien (in paras [11] - [15]), and concluded that the magistrate's dismissal of this defence should also be upheld. C

[5] Though the defendants sought leave to pursue a further appeal to this Court against the rejection of both their defences, the Court a quo granted them leave to appeal only 'in respect of the existence in law, or not, of the lien for which [they] contend'. The magistrate's finding that the lease under which the D defendants were entitled to occupy the property had been duly terminated by one month's notice, therefore, stands.

[6] An appropriate starting point for a discussion of the questions raised by the appeal appears to be a statement of the generally accepted principle that in Roman-Dutch law, following Roman E law, lessees were originally in the same position as bona fide possessors as far as claims for improvements to leased properties were concerned. It follows that absent any governing provisions in the contract of lease, lessees, like bona fide possessors, had an enrichment claim for the recovery of expenses that were necessary for the protection or preservation of the property F (called impensae necessariae), as well as for expenses incurred in effecting useful improvements to the property (called impensae utiles). (See eg Nortje en 'n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) at 131.) More pertinent for present purposes, lessees, like bona fide possessors, who were still in possession of the leased property, also had an enrichment lien (a G ius retentionis) that allowed them to retain the property until their claims for compensation had been satisfied (see eg Digest 19.2.55.1; De Groot Inleydinge tot de Hollandsche Rechtsgeleerdheid 2.10.8; Van der Keessel Praelectiones Iuris Hodierni ad Grotium 2.10.8; Van der Keessel Theses Selectae Iuris Hollandici et Zelandici Th 213 (Lorentz's translation 2 ed (1901) at 73); De Beer's H Consolidated Mines v London and SA Exploration Company (1893) 10 SC 359 at 367; Lechoana v Cloete 1925 AD 536 at 549; Lessing v Steyn 1953 (4) SA 193 (O) at 199C - D; Syfrets Participation Bond Managers Ltd v Estate and Co-op Wine Distributors (Pty) Ltd 1989 (1) SA 106 (W) at 110F - H; Bodenstein Huur van Huizen en Landen volgens het Hedendaagsch I Romeinsch-Hollandsch Recht at 116; R W Lee An Introduction to Roman Dutch Law 5 ed at 304; Van der Merwe Sakereg 2 ed at 164; A J Kerr The Law of Sale and Lease 3 ed at 466; Ellison Kahn (ed) Principles of the Law of Sale and Lease at 89. As to enrichment liens in general see also eg United Building Society v Smookler's Trustees and Golombick's Trustee 1906 TS 623 at 626 - 9; Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze and Sons J

Brand JA

1970 (3) SA 264 (A) at 270 - 2 and Goudini Chrome (Pty) Ltd v MCC Contracts (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 77 (A) at A 84J - 85D.)

[7] Malpractices amongst lessees led, however, to legislation by the Estates of Holland on two occasions, which severely restricted their right to compensation for improvements. The first enactment was promulgated on 26 September 1658. It is to be found in the Groot Placaet-Boeck (GPB) part 2 cols 2515 - 20 under the B rubric 'Placaet vande Staten van Hollandt, tegens de Pachters ende Bruyckers vande Landen'. The provisions of this Placaet were re-enacted in almost identical terms on 24 February 1696, in a 'Renovatie-Placaet' (see GPB part 4 cols 465 - 7). Because the provisions of the two Placaeten were so similar, reference is often C made to 'the Placaet', singular, meaning the earlier one of 1658 (see eg De Beer's (supra) at 368; Rubin v Botha 1911 AD 568 at 579; Spies v Lombard 1950 (3) SA 469 (A) at 473A and 476D - E).

[8] Four articles of the Placaeten dealt with claims for improvements, namely articles 10 to 13. Of these the most important for present purposes was article 10, which is translated as follows by D W E Cooper Landlord and Tenant 2 ed at 329 fn 3:

'Provided, nevertheless, that whenever the owner of any lands, takes them for himself, or lets them to others, he is bound to pay the old lessee, or his heirs, compensation for the structures, which the lessee had erected with the consent of the owner, as well as for ploughing, tilling, sowing and seed corn, to be taxed by the court of E the locality, without, however, the lessees being allowed to continue occupying and using the lands, after the expiration of the term of the lease, under the pretext of (a claim for) material or improvements, but may only institute their action for compensation after vacating (the lands).'

(For the original Dutch see eg Cooper (loc cit); Syfrets Participation Bond Managers F (supra) at 110I - 111A.) For other very similar translations see Lee Commentary at 92 and George Wille Landlord and Tenant in South Africa 5 ed at 270.

[9] The import of article 10 is clear. Though lessees retained their right to claim compensation for improvements, the claim was limited to improvements effected with the landlord's consent. G Moreover, they lost their right of retention in the form of a lien. At the end of the lease period, they first had to vacate the property before they could institute their claim for compensation. Articles 11, 12 and 13 limited the lessees' right to compensation even further. Under article 11 compensation payable for 'structures' was restricted to bare materials, not including sand and lime, and excluding the costs H of labour. Article 12 dealt with structures erected without the landlord's consent. In respect of these, lessees had no claim for compensation at all, though they were allowed to break down the structures and remove the material before termination of the lease. In terms of article 13, the lessee's right to claim compensation for I plantings and trees was virtually abolished in that it was limited to those planted on the instructions of the owner, and then only for the original cost of the plants (see eg Cooper (op cit) at 329 - 30).

[10] The question whether the Placaeten ever became part of South African law and, if so, to what extent, was pertinently raised And J

Brand JA

discussed by this Court in Spies v Lombard (supra). The article relied on by the appellant in that A matter, Spies, was article 9 of the Placaeten which essentially rendered it unlawful for lessees to sublet the property or assign the lease without the owner's written consent. The argument raised in answer by the respondent, Lombard, was that the Placaeten were promulgated by the Estates of Holland, which had no legislative powers outside that province. Consequently, so Lombard's argument went, these B legislative enactments could have no application proprio vigore to the other provinces of the Netherlands or to the Dutch possessions beyond the seas, including the Cape Colony (see 481G - 482A). Van den Heever JA, with the other two members of the Court concurring, agreed with this argument as far as it went (see at 482H). However, so he held, although the Placaeten did not apply to South C Africa proprio vigore, some of the rules derived from the Placaeten had become part of our law through reception by the courts. These rules he then summarised as follows (at 484C - D):

'(1) (T)hat it is unlawful to sub-let rural land without the landlord's consent and that consequently the sub-lessee cannot invoke D his contract against the landlord and (2) one, not now relevant, relating to improvements on leased land.'

The rules in category (2) were subsequently identified as those contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Placaeten (see eg in Lessing v Steyn 1953 (4) SA 193 (O) at 201C - H; E De Wet and Van Wyk Kontraktereg...