Nel v Abrams and Another [1911] ZATPD 4 (2 February 1911)

Ejectment - Procedure - Facts disputed - Costs - Contract - Trading monopoly - Lease or innominate contract

In an application for an ejectment order the respondent set up a right of occupation by virtue of an alleged written agreement between the parties. The agreement was admitted by the applicant, but he alleged that it had subsequently been cancelled, and in any event was invalid on the ground of informality. These allegations were disputed by the respondent.

Held, that, as material facts were in dispute, the question at issue should be settled by way of action and not on motion.

Where application was made for an ejectment order, but, owing to certain material facts being in dispute, the Court ordered the issue to be tried by action, as the applicant prima facie  appeared to have a strong case, the costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause.