A Gordon’s Bay perfume retailer which claimed to have spent hundreds of thousands of rands expanding its business has been left with legal uncertainty after a court battle over its tenancy ended without the determination of whether it has the right to remain in its shop.

Parfum de Paris, which has traded at The Village Centre for more than a decade, approached the Western Cape High Court for clarity over whether it had secured a new lease agreement until October 2027.

Instead, after months of legal wrangling, urgent court proceedings, and arguments between lawyers, the court dismissed the application – not because the retailer’s claim was proven wrong, but because the dispute could not be resolved on paper.

Acting Judge Adrian Montzinger found the matter turned on a factual dispute between Parfum de Paris and its landlord, Della Investments, meaning that the parties would need to present evidence in a proper trial before the question could be answered.

According to News24, Parfum de Paris claims it signed a lease agreement after moving into a larger shop at The Village Centre in November 2023.

The company’s director and sole shareholder, Sadji Amine, told the court he was approached by Della Investments’ representative Anthony de la Fontaine and offered the opportunity to expand the perfume business.

Amine claimed he signed a new lease agreement that would allow the business to remain on the premises until October 2027.

The retailer said it had handed the signed document back to De la Fontaine but never received a counter-signed copy.

Relying on assurances the lease had been approved, Parfum de Paris said it spent about R300 000 fitting out the new premises and began paying increased rental – rising from about R24 000 per month, to between R46 000 and R51 000.

But the arrangement unravelled when the retailer attempted to sell the business for R4.3m in late 2025, reports News24.

During the buyer’s due diligence process, questions were raised about whether the lease existed.

According to the judgment, Parfum de Paris said it was then informed the lease would not be signed and that the tenancy would come to an end.

The landlord disputed this, arguing that there was no new lease and that the retailer had simply moved premises under the terms of an earlier agreement. Della Investments maintained the original lease had expired and that the retailer had no automatic right to remain until 2027.

The court found itself unable to determine which version was correct.

Montzinger said: 'There plainly is a genuine dispute of fact on the main issue.' Motzinger said the competing accounts could not be resolved through affidavits because they depended on the credibility of the people involved and what was said between them.

The landlord’s evidence was weakened by the fact De la Fontaine, the person accused of presenting the new lease, did not directly deny doing so.

But the tenant’s case was also complicated by inconsistencies in correspondence about the alleged lease period.

The court dismissed the application and ordered Parfum de Paris to pay the landlord’s wasted costs for earlier proceedings in March, as well as the costs of the application.

But the dismissal did not mean the landlord had won the underlying dispute.

‘I make no finding as to whether a new lease was concluded, or as to its terms,’ Montzinger said.

Full News24 report