- The tenant was trading normally before the landlord’s unilateral lockout.
- Chaining and locking the shop without following due legal process was found to be unlawful.
- The court ordered the landlord to restore access immediately and to foot the legal bill.
The High Court in Pretoria has ruled that a landlord acted unlawfully when it locked a tenant out of its shop at Bronkhorstspruit Mall, bypassing the courts entirely and resorting to a chain and padlock instead.
The case, Wasqar Trading Pty Ltd v Bronkhorstspruit Mall Pty Ltd, turned on a question of whether the landlord’s heavy-handed action amounted to unlawful dispossession under the law of spoliation.
Wasqar Trading Pty Ltd rushed to the urgent court after finding itself locked out of its own premises on 7 March 2026. Bronkhorstspruit Mall Pty Ltd had secured the shop with a chain and padlock, leaving the business unable to trade and haemorrhaging customers and revenue by the day.
There was no dispute that Wasqar Trading had been operating quietly, and without interruption from Shop No 5, a roughly 308-square-metre unit inside Bronkhorstspruit Mall, right up until the moment the landlord moved in.
Possession and unlawful dispossession
The court found that all the requirements for a spoliation order had been met. The tenant was in possession, and that possession was stripped away without consent and without any lawful process. Crucially, the case was never about who owned the property or whether the lease had been breached. It was about how the landlord chose to act.
Judge R Francis Subbiah elaborated, “The question before the court is whether the dispossession was lawful. The applicants were dispossessed of the property without their consent, and without due legal process being followed.”
The court also turned the landlord’s own actions against it. By sending a formal demand for the tenant to vacate and threatening eviction proceedings, Bronkhorstspruit Mall had effectively conceded that Wasqar Trading was in possession. The court noted that such notices exist precisely to encourage voluntary compliance and uphold procedural fairness, the very process the landlord chose to skip.
The lease clause does not permit self-help
In its defence, Bronkhorstspruit Mall pointed to Clause 34 of the lease, which allowed for cancellation and legal action without prior notice in the event of a breach. The landlord argued this gave it the green light to do what it did.
Judge Subbiah was having none of it. “The respondent, however, cannot resort to self-help by locking the applicant out of the property under the auspices of eviction,” he ruled, “notwithstanding that Clause 34 of the lease agreement provides for proceeding with legal action without giving notice.”
The court also examined the landlord’s letter demanding payment of R102,000, which threatened eviction, liquidation proceedings, and sequestration against the sureties. Reading the letter reasonably, the court accepted that settling that amount would clear the arrears and keep the lease alive. Wasqar Trading had, in fact, paid off the debt before approaching the court, and the judge accepted that the tenant arrived with clean hands.
Court rejects landlord’s conduct
The judgment was a firm restatement of a long-standing legal principle. No party may take the law into its own hands, regardless of what the contract says. Even if a landlord is convinced it has every right to cancel a lease must go to court and follow due process.
Judge Subbiah did not mince his words. “Any self-help to evict the Applicant by locking up the premises is disingenuous and results in unlawful conduct,” he said.
The court made clear that procedural fairness, proper notice, lawful eviction processes, and respect for due process are not optional. It is the only acceptable way to resolve disputes of this kind.
Immediate restoration ordered
The urgent application succeeded. The court ordered that possession be restored without delay, specifically directing that Wasqar Trading be returned to its shop, trading as SOHI HOUSE and HOME, at Bronkhorstspruit Mall.
The judge directed that the sheriff of the court step in directly. “The sheriff of the court is ordered to forthwith open up premises mentioned in (2) above and to hand free and undisturbed possession of same, to the Applicant’s representative.”
Bronkhorstspruit Mall was ordered to pay the costs of the application on Scale B.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
