The court considered whether the disqualification of the appellants’ counsel from the conduct of the case was proper. The court held that regulation 9 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations barred advocates from being witnesses in cases in which they were appearing. The court was not satisfied that the appellants’ counsel was a potential witness in the matter since he would not be required to be cross examined on the letter in issue. The court accordingly concluded that the appellants’ counsel was improperly barred from appearing for his clients.
The court also considered whether the trial court rightly found that the tenancy agreements were wrongly terminated by the appellants’ re-entry into the suit premises. The court held that failure to pay rent was a fundamental breach of a tenancy agreement which entitled the landlord to re-entry or resumption of possession of the leased premises. The court was satisfied that the respondent had been in breach of the agreement by failing to pay rent, failing to keep the suit property in good condition and by subletting it without the consent of the respondent. The court accordingly concluded that the failure to pay rent was a fundamental breach which entitled the appellants to re-enter the suit premises.