Accelerated Property Fund Limited v Coetzee and Another (1694/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 50 (5 July 2021)

Accelerated Property Fund Limited v Coetzee and Another (1694/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 50 (5 July 2021)

The court found that the respondents failed to establish any lawful entitlement to occupy the property. The lease agreement was signed by the 1st respondent in his personal capacity, and no valid addendum was concluded with the 2nd respondent. The points in limine of lis alibi pendens and misjoinder were dismissed: the pending action proceedings did not bar the present application, as the cause of action here was based on ownership and the right to eject, not on the lease or arrear rental. The respondents offered no substantive defence to the merits. The court exercised its discretion to grant ejectment, finding that convenience and equity required immediate relief to prevent the...

Citation
[2021] ZALMPPHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Accelerated Property Fund Limited; Respondent: Gerhardus Coetzee t/a Impala Vleismark; Respondent: Impala Vleismark (Pty) Limited
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2021
Case Number
1694/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Ejectment Order; Opposed on Points in Limine
Outcome
Application granted; respondents ordered to vacate property and pay costs.
Judges
Semenya M V
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Lis Alibi Pendens, Misjoinder, Lease Agreement, Rei Vindicatio
Land and Property Civil Procedure Ejectment Lis Alibi Pendens Misjoinder Lease Agreement Rei Vindicatio

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Accelerated Property Fund Limited

Applicant

Gerhardus Coetzee t/a Impala Vleismark

Respondent

Impala Vleismark (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Ejectment Order; Opposed on Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have a lawful entitlement to occupy the property.
  2. 2 Whether the application is barred by lis alibi pendens due to pending action proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether misjoinder applies to the 1st respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to establish any lawful entitlement to occupy the property. The lease agreement was signed by the 1st respondent in his personal capacity, and no valid addendum was concluded with the 2nd respondent. The points in limine of lis alibi pendens and misjoinder were dismissed: the pending action proceedings did not bar the present application, as the cause of action here was based on ownership and the right to eject, not on the lease or arrear rental. The respondents offered no substantive defence to the merits. The court exercised its discretion to grant ejectment, finding that convenience and equity required immediate relief to prevent the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondents ordered to vacate property and pay costs.

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd respondents and anyone occupying property known as G8-2 Bosveld Shopping Centre, situated at Erf 1[…], Bosveld, Bela Bela, Limpopo, through the 1st and 2nd respondents are ejected from the property.
  • The 1st and 2nd respondents are to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.