Ascension Properties Limited v Sebola (2015/05678) [2016] ZAGPJHC 190 (8 July 2016)

Ascension Properties Limited v Sebola (2015/05678) [2016] ZAGPJHC 190 (8 July 2016)

The court found that the applicant was the registered owner of the premises and that the respondent was in arrears with rental payments. The respondent did not dispute the arrears or the applicant's entitlement to cancel the lease. The dispute resolution clause did not preclude the court's jurisdiction in the absence of a genuine dispute. The lease was properly cancelled after written notice, and the applicant was entitled to an ejectment order. The claim for payment of monies was abandoned during the hearing, and only the ejectment order was sought and granted.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 190
Parties
Applicant: Ascension Properties Limited; Respondent: Sebola Mashilo Shadrak
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 July 2016
Case Number
2015/05678
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The application for ejectment was granted; the respondent is ordered to vacate the premises.
Judges
C G Lamont
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Lease Agreement, Arrear Rental, Dispute Resolution Clause
Land and Property Civil Procedure Ejectment Lease Agreement Arrear Rental Dispute Resolution Clause

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ascension Properties Limited

Applicant

Sebola Mashilo Shadrak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to eject the respondent from the leased premises due to arrear rental payments.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute resolution clause in the lease agreement precludes the court from granting ejectment.
  3. 3 Whether the lease agreement was properly cancelled in accordance with its terms.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was the registered owner of the premises and that the respondent was in arrears with rental payments. The respondent did not dispute the arrears or the applicant's entitlement to cancel the lease. The dispute resolution clause did not preclude the court's jurisdiction in the absence of a genuine dispute. The lease was properly cancelled after written notice, and the applicant was entitled to an ejectment order. The claim for payment of monies was abandoned during the hearing, and only the ejectment order was sought and granted.

Court Disposition

The application for ejectment was granted; the respondent is ordered to vacate the premises.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to vacate the leased premises as per paragraphs 1, 2, and 5 of the notice of motion.