- Company directors Essa Davids and Andile Peter signed the lease without naming Kidrogen, leading to a dispute over legal standing.
- Supreme Court confirms correction to the lease, enforces eviction, and the arrears claim.
- Judgment reaffirms the owner’s right to reclaim property under rei vindicatio (the right to recover property from unlawful possession).
When Shaan Nordien signed a rental agreement for a Parklands property, he likely did not expect to end up in the Supreme Court of Appeal five years later. He faced accusations of squatting, owed R250 800 in rent, and insisted the landlord was not who they claimed to be.
But that is what happened. The directors of Kidrogen RF (Pty) Ltd, Essa Davids and Andile Peter, signed the lease but failed to state they were acting for the company. That omission became the Nordien family’s final line of defence. If Kidrogen wasn’t named, then Kidrogen couldn’t evict.
The Supreme Court disagreed resolutely, finally, and with strong legal reasoning. “Correction does not affect the rights and obligations of the parties,” the court stated. “It merely serves to correct the written record of the contract.” In other words, the lease always belonged to Kidrogen, and so did the house.
The lease, the sale, and the fallout
The Nordien family took possession of 62 Trinity Street, Parklands, under a lease signed in October 2019 by Essa Davids and Andile Peter, directors of Kidrogen, but without specifying they were acting on behalf of the company. Later, an addendum reduced the annual rental increase and offered relief during the COVID-19 lockdown. A sale agreement was concluded in February 2020 but later cancelled. Nordien claimed a second sale agreement existed, which Kidrogen disputed.
By October 2020, Kidrogen demanded R250 800 in unpaid rent. Nordien said he was waiting for offshore funds and promised to pay but did not follow through. Kidrogen cancelled the lease and filed for eviction.
Nordien’s defense was that he never signed a lease with Kidrogen, only with the two directors personally. Therefore, he claimed, Kidrogen could not evict him.
Correction and reality
The SCA rejected that argument. It stated clearly that Nordien admits he contracted with Kidrogen, which contradicts the claim that the lease agreement was made with Davids and Peter in their personal capacities.
The court pointed to several documents, including an addendum on Kidrogen’s letterhead, an acknowledgement of debt, and emails from Nordien himself. All indicated Kidrogen as the landlord. In one email, Nordien even wrote, “The full amounts due to Kidrogen may be deducted from 5% Sitari Project profit sharing once the houses are sold.”
Justice T Makgoka, writing separately, reinforced this point. Nordien’s claim that Kidrogen is a stranger to the lease agreement must be considered in this factual context. He noted that Kidrogen, as the registered owner, had the right to evict under the principle of rei vindicatio, which allows owners to reclaim their property.
A lesson in legal clarity
The court recognised that Kidrogen had not mentioned correction in its original papers, but found that the defense only arose later, in Nordien’s answering affidavit. This permitted Kidrogen to correct the record. “Correction does not affect the rights and obligations of the parties,” the court explained. “It merely serves to correct the written record of the contract.”
In the end, the SCA denied special leave to appeal and ordered the Nordiens to pay costs. The judgment closes a long chapter of litigation and sends a clear message. When directors sign on behalf of a company, they must state it clearly. And when the facts reveal who the true landlord is, the law will follow.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
