Corporate Park Properties(Pty) Ltd v Glass Decorations CC (21408/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 245 (29 October 2007)

Corporate Park Properties(Pty) Ltd v Glass Decorations CC (21408/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 245 (29 October 2007)

The court found that there was no dispute between the parties regarding the date by which the respondent was to vacate the premises, as both parties had agreed to 30 June 2007 and the respondent had already vacated before that date. The application for a declaratory order was therefore premature and unnecessary. Furthermore, the applicant was not entitled to a costs order, as the respondent was justified in opposing the application solely to protect itself against an adverse costs order. The applicant failed to demonstrate any entitlement to relief, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 245
Parties
Applicant: Corporate Park Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Glass Decorations CC
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2007
Case Number
21408/07
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / Motion Proceedings; Opposed Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Seriti
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement Termination, Vacant Possession, Costs Order, Premature Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Termination Vacant Possession Costs Order Premature Application

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporate Park Properties (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Glass Decorations CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / Motion Proceedings; Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was obliged to vacate the premises by 30 June 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to a declaratory order and costs against the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the application was necessary given the respondent's agreement to vacate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no dispute between the parties regarding the date by which the respondent was to vacate the premises, as both parties had agreed to 30 June 2007 and the respondent had already vacated before that date. The application for a declaratory order was therefore premature and unnecessary. Furthermore, the applicant was not entitled to a costs order, as the respondent was justified in opposing the application solely to protect itself against an adverse costs order. The applicant failed to demonstrate any entitlement to relief, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.