Conceptualising an unfair practice regime in landlord-tenant law

Abstract

In Maphango v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd Cameron J formulated the ‘narrow question’ in the case as ‘when a landlord may cancel a lease and evict its tenants’. The Court’s phraseology of the narrow question indicates the two-stage process in landlord-tenant evictions, namely, that the tenants’ legal right to occupy the premises must first be terminated before the landlord can institute eviction proceedings. The majority judgment is the first of its kind to engage with the first stage of the process and purposively shift the focus to the legitimacy of the ground for termination of the lease. What distinguishes the Maphango judgment from the previous landlord-tenant eviction cases is that the majority decided that the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 can be interpreted to invalidate the landlord’s ground or reason for termination of the lease.