Glowing Rooms (Pty) Ltd v Levin N O and Others

Glowing Rooms (Pty) Ltd leased commercial premises from the Woodlands Trust to operate an indoor mini‑golf business. After successive three‑year written leases (2016–2019 and 2019–2022), the parties negotiated during July–August 2022 for a further lease. The Trust denied that a new lease was concluded, while Glowing Rooms contended that a further lease on the same terms had come into existence. An initial eviction application by the Trust was dismissed on the basis that an oral lease existed. Accepting that ruling, the Trust then relied on clause 2.1 of the lease, which allowed cancellation on one month’s notice, and issued a termination notice on 28 October 2022. Glowing Rooms refused to vacate, arguing that the Trust had repudiated the lease, that the notice was invalid, that clause 2.1 was contrary to public policy, and that the common law should be developed to require good‑faith negotiation before cancellation. The High Court granted eviction, and Glowing Rooms appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, except that the eviction date was varied. Glowing Rooms was ordered to vacate the premises by 30 June 2024, failing which the sheriff was authorised to evict it on 1 July 2024. Costs in the High Court were on an attorney‑and‑client scale in terms of the lease.

The case reaffirms the enforceability of unilateral cancellation clauses in commercial leases and underscores the principle of pacta sunt servanda in South African contract law. It clarifies that repudiation requires clear and unequivocal conduct and that prior litigation positions do not necessarily amount to repudiation once a court has ruled. The judgment also confirms the limited circumstances in which courts will develop the common law of contract in line with constitutional values, particularly in purely commercial disputes.