Changing Tides 91 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Azam & Friends (Pty) Ltd t/a Urban Roti (1194/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 31 (24 April 2024)

Changing Tides 91 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Azam & Friends (Pty) Ltd t/a Urban Roti (1194/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 31 (24 April 2024)

The court found that the Consortium failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The timeframes imposed on the respondent for opposition were unjustified and prejudicial, given the complexity of the matter. Clause 3.3 of the new lease agreement with Galxboy allows for delayed occupation without financial or reputational harm to the Consortium, negating the alleged urgency. The Consortium's anxiety about lack of substantial redress was unfounded. The court held that the matter does not warrant disruption of the court roll and that the Consortium should not be allowed to jump the queue. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAECQBHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Changing Tides 91 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Boardwalk Mall (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Flanagan & Gerard Investments 3 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Azam & Friends (Pty) Ltd t/a Urban Roti
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2024
Case Number
1194/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs.
Judges
Gqamana
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Eviction, Lease Cancellation, Commercial Lease, Abridgment of Time, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgent Application Eviction Lease Cancellation Commercial Lease Abridgment of Time Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Changing Tides 91 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Boardwalk Mall (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Flanagan & Gerard Investments 3 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Azam & Friends (Pty) Ltd t/a Urban Roti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for eviction brought by the Consortium against the respondent is urgent and should be heard on an expedited basis.
  2. 2 Whether the Consortium would suffer irreparable harm or lack substantial redress if the matter is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the timeframes imposed on the respondent for filing opposition were justified by the degree of urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Consortium failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The timeframes imposed on the respondent for opposition were unjustified and prejudicial, given the complexity of the matter. Clause 3.3 of the new lease agreement with Galxboy allows for delayed occupation without financial or reputational harm to the Consortium, negating the alleged urgency. The Consortium's anxiety about lack of substantial redress was unfounded. The court held that the matter does not warrant disruption of the court roll and that the Consortium should not be allowed to jump the queue. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll with costs.