Big Cedar Trading 6 (Pty) Ltd v Nkwe Vaccination Clinic (Pty) Ltd (2481/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 237 (16 September 2022)

Big Cedar Trading 6 (Pty) Ltd v Nkwe Vaccination Clinic (Pty) Ltd (2481/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 237 (16 September 2022)

The court found that the original lease agreement expired and continued on a month-to-month basis, which was validly terminated by the applicant with more than the required notice. The purported second lease agreement was not signed by the respondent and lacked cogent evidence of its existence. The respondent's version regarding the second agreement was improbable and untenable, and the court rejected it on the papers. The applicant established ownership, valid termination, and unlawful occupation, entitling it to ejectment. The respondent was granted a reasonable period to vacate, and costs were awarded on the party and party scale.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 237
Parties
Applicant: Big Cedar Trading 6 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nkwe Vaccination Clinic (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Case Number
2481/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Ejectment Application
Outcome
Application for ejectment granted; respondent ordered to vacate property.
Judges
Mathebula
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Lease Termination, Unlawful Occupation, Motion Proceedings, Dispute of Facts
Land and Property Civil Procedure Ejectment Lease Termination Unlawful Occupation Motion Proceedings Dispute of Facts

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Big Cedar Trading 6 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Nkwe Vaccination Clinic (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Ejectment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement between the parties was validly terminated.
  2. 2 Whether a second written lease agreement exists and is enforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's continued occupation of the property is unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original lease agreement expired and continued on a month-to-month basis, which was validly terminated by the applicant with more than the required notice. The purported second lease agreement was not signed by the respondent and lacked cogent evidence of its existence. The respondent's version regarding the second agreement was improbable and untenable, and the court rejected it on the papers. The applicant established ownership, valid termination, and unlawful occupation, entitling it to ejectment. The respondent was granted a reasonable period to vacate, and costs were awarded on the party and party scale.

Court Disposition

Application for ejectment granted; respondent ordered to vacate property.

Orders

  • The respondent and any person(s) claiming title under it are evicted from the immovable property known as Aescalapium Medical Centre, Kruis Street, Parys.
  • All persons mentioned must vacate the property on or before Monday, 31 October 2022 and not return thereafter.