R v LO Yank

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: De Villiers JP and Jennett J
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1957
• Citation: 1957 (3) SA 665 (E)
• Hearing Date: 22 May 1957
• Court: Eastern Districts Local Division

De Villiers, J.P.:

The appellant was convicted by an additional magistrate of Port Elizabeth on 11 counts of contravening sec. 25 (1) of Act 43 of 1950 and was sentenced to pay a fine of £40 or 40 days' imprisonment with compulsory labour on each count.

F He now appeals on various grounds in terms of his original grounds of appeal and certain amendments and additions thereto that were allowed.

Mr. Isaacson for the appellant limited his argument to two grounds:

Firstly, he contended that the charge disclosed no offence in that it contained no allegation that the extra money demanded by the appellant G in addition to the rent was in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of the tenancy of the relevant premises.

Secondly, he contended that the evidence did not establish the charge in that there was no evidence as to what the maximum permissible rent was. It was therefore possible that the rent plus the premium demanded spread over the period of occupation might have been less than the maximum permissible rent.

I shall deal with Mr. Isaacson's first ground first.

H The charge reads as follows:

'Charged with the offence of contravening section 25 (1) read with section 25 (3) of Act 43 of 1950 (11 counts) in that upon or about the dates mentioned in column I of the Schedule hereto and or at or near Port Elizabeth in the district of Port Elizabeth, the said accused, being the lessor of controlled premises situated in North Court, Theale Street, Port Elizabeth, did wrongfully and unlawfully require or accept the payment by the persons mentioned in column

De Villiers JP

II of the schedule of a bonus, premium or other like sum in addition to the rent thereof, to wit the amounts mentioned in column III of the Schedule.'

Then followed the Schedule.

Sec. 25 (1) of Act 43 of 1950 is as follows:

'It shall not be lawful for the lessor of any controlled premises to require or accept or for the lessee of any such premises to offer in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of the tenancy A thereof, the payment by any person of any bonus, premium or other like sum in addition to the rent, or to impose or accept any condition or to enter into or carry out any agreement calculated to defeat the objects of this Act.'

It is in my view quite clear that what the Legislature is prohibiting, inter alia, is a demand or acceptance by the landlord of any sum of B money in addition to the agreed or determined rent, as a...