Maphango v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd

The appellants were 18 lessees occupying flats in a residential building, Lowliebenhof, in Braamfontein, Johannesburg. The respondent purchased the building in 2007 and became owner in May 2009, succeeding to the existing leases by operation of the principle huur gaat voor koop. After undertaking renovations and incurring substantial costs, the respondent found that the existing rentals were insufficient to make the project commercially viable. After the initial fixed periods of the leases had expired, the respondent gave notice terminating the leases and offered new leases at substantially higher rentals (100%–150% increases). Two leases supported by housing subsidies could not lawfully be terminated, which the respondent conceded. The remaining appellants refused to vacate, arguing that the terminations were invalid and that eviction would be unjust and inequitable.

The appeal was dismissed. The findings of the High Court that the leases (other than the two conceded) were validly terminated and that the appellants should pay their own costs were upheld.

This case is significant for clarifying the limits of constitutional and public policy challenges to the enforcement of lease agreements. It confirms that section 26(1) of the Constitution does not grant lessees perpetual security of tenure and that contractual termination clauses remain enforceable when exercised in accordance with their terms. The judgment also reinforces the principle that fairness and reasonableness are not independent bases for invalidating contractual rights.