Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd

The applicants were long-term residential tenants occupying flats in a Johannesburg building, Lowliebenhof, owned by Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd. Their leases contained escalation clauses limiting annual rent increases and, in many cases, clauses requiring the landlord to approach the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal to approve any increases beyond those limits. After purchasing the property, the respondent sought to impose substantial rent increases (often more than double the existing rent). To avoid the contractual and statutory limits, the respondent purported to terminate the leases on notice and offered new leases at much higher rentals, failing which eviction would follow. Many tenants could not afford the increases, and several faced homelessness. The High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the leases were validly terminated. The tenants sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was set aside, and the dispute was referred to the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal to determine whether the terminations and rent increases constituted unfair practices.

This case is a leading authority on the interaction between contract law, housing legislation, and constitutional rights. It affirmed the central role of Rental Housing Tribunals in protecting tenants against unfair practices and clarified that landlords cannot circumvent statutory and contractual rent controls by terminating leases. The decision strengthened security of tenure for residential tenants and reinforced that contractual freedom is constrained by constitutional values, particularly the right of access to adequate housing.