- Supreme Court of Appeal upholds magistrates’ court jurisdiction, overturning high court dismissal; monetary claim not specific performance.
- The court finds no duty on the landlord to mitigate damages as the lease was never cancelled.
- Respondents ordered to pay R442 493 with interest and costs on an attorney and client scale.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has clarified the reach of magistrates’ courts in claims for arrear rental. It ruled in favor of Waterberg Boulevard (Pty) Ltd against Smulhoekie Tuisnywerheid (Pty) Ltd and Louis Petrus Boshoff.
Acting Deputy President Y Mbatha, along with Judges M Hughes, B Weiner, R Molefe, and D Unterhalter, set aside the High Court order from the Limpopo Division. That order dismissed Waterberg’s appeal, stating that the magistrates’ court lacked jurisdiction.
“This matter shows that claims for arrear rental, even when large, are still claims for money, not claims for specific performance that need alternative damages,” Judge Mbatha said. “The magistrates’ court can handle such claims as long as each claim falls within statutory limits or the parties have agreed to jurisdiction in writing.”
Background and earlier proceedings
Waterberg Boulevard leased business premises to Smulhoekie Tuisnywerheid on 15 March 2016, with Boshoff signing as surety. Rental started at R17 100 per month and increased over three years. The business closed by October 2016.
Waterberg first brought a claim in the Bela-Bela Magistrates’ Court, which was upheld. On appeal, the Limpopo Division of the High Court found that Waterberg had not tried to reduce damages and that the claim exceeded the magistrates’ court jurisdiction, dismissing the appeal.
Waterberg later issued a new summons under case number 108/2020, claiming arrear rental of R478 061.28, which was later reduced to R442 493. The magistrates’ court dismissed the respondents’ preliminary objections. This prompted the appeal to the High Court that the SCA ultimately overturned.
Specific performance and statutory interpretation
A key question before the SCA was whether Waterberg’s claim qualified as specific performance. Under section 46(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, such a claim would exceed magistrates’ court jurisdiction unless it included an alternative claim for damages.
Judge Mbatha explained, “Orders for money, no matter the cause of action, are not orders for specific performance. The high court did not recognise this difference, treating Waterberg’s monetary claim as a specific performance claim requiring damages to be claimed in the alternative.”
Each year’s rental claim was detailed separately in the particulars of the claim. “Interpreted correctly, different claims with a total value over the magistrates’ court limit can be brought in one action, as long as each claim is a separate cause of action,” Judge Mbatha said.
No duty to mitigate damages
The SCA also rejected the high court’s finding that Waterberg had a duty to accept a replacement tenant to reduce damages. “Clause 9.2.3 of the lease governs mitigation. The lease was never canceled, and Waterberg’s rights remained under its terms. No outside duty arose,” the judgment states.
On the topic of pre-trial agreements, Judge Mbatha stated, “Incorrect legal concessions made during pre-trial discussions are not binding on the court. Questions of jurisdiction are always up to the court to decide.”
The Supreme Court of Appeal granted special leave to appeal, upheld Waterberg’s appeal with costs, and replaced the high court order. The respondents are ordered to pay R442 493 jointly and severally, with interest accruing from 25 April 2023 to the payment date, along with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
