Breau Investments (Pty) Ltd v Maverick Trading 326 CC (50347/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 161; 2010 (1) SA 367 (GNP) (14 August 2009)

Breau Investments (Pty) Ltd v Maverick Trading 326 CC (50347/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 161; 2010 (1) SA 367 (GNP) (14 August 2009)

The court found that the parties failed to agree on the rental for the renewal period, and the determination by the applicant's appointed party was disputed by the respondent. The lease agreement provided for cancellation in such circumstances, and the applicant exercised its right to cancel after the respondent failed to pay the determined rental. The respondent's argument that cancellation was invalid after litigation commenced was rejected, as the law does not prevent cancellation in such circumstances. The applicant's intention to avoid litigation regarding the rental was inferred from its actions. The court held that the applicant validly cancelled the lease and was entitled to an...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 161
Parties
Applicant: Breau Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Maverick Trading 326 CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2009
Case Number
50347/2008
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; lease cancellation upheld; costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
A. P. Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Lease Renewal, Determination of Rental, Eviction, Contract Cancellation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Renewal Determination of Rental Eviction Contract Cancellation

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Breau Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Maverick Trading 326 CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is lawfully entitled to remain in occupation of the premises after the lease renewal failed due to disagreement on rental.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant validly cancelled the lease agreement in terms of the contract and applicable law.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's prospects in the pending action proceedings justify resisting eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties failed to agree on the rental for the renewal period, and the determination by the applicant's appointed party was disputed by the respondent. The lease agreement provided for cancellation in such circumstances, and the applicant exercised its right to cancel after the respondent failed to pay the determined rental. The respondent's argument that cancellation was invalid after litigation commenced was rejected, as the law does not prevent cancellation in such circumstances. The applicant's intention to avoid litigation regarding the rental was inferred from its actions. The court held that the applicant validly cancelled the lease and was entitled to an...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; lease cancellation upheld; costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent and all persons claiming occupation of Shop 3, Village Square Shopping Centre, Amandalboom Road, Doornpoort Ext 35, Pretoria, Gauteng must vacate the premises within 1 month of this order.
  • Should the respondent fail to comply, the sheriff of the court is authorised to evict the respondent.