Danton Pub CC and Others v Lynwood Forum (A768/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 250 (18 April 2018)

Danton Pub CC and Others v Lynwood Forum (A768/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 250 (18 April 2018)

The court found that the appellants raised triable issues regarding the authenticity and terms of the lease agreement, specifically the alleged alterations to pages 7 and 35 and the dispute over the deposit and rental amounts. These issues could not be resolved on summary judgment and required ventilation at trial. The liability of the sureties was contingent on the respondent proving its claim against the principal debtor, which was also disputed. Given the drastic nature of summary judgment proceedings and the existence of bona fide defences, the court held that summary judgment ought not to have been granted and that the appellants should be allowed to defend the action.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 250
Parties
Appellant: Danton Pub CC; Appellant: Danile Johannes Bredenkamp Hamman; Appellant: Johan Anton Swanepoel; Appellant: Marthinus Cornelius Human; Respondent: Lynwood Forum
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2018
Case Number
A768/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; summary judgment set aside; appellants granted leave to defend.
Judges
Molopa-Sethosa, Raulinga, Kollapen
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Lease Agreement, Suretyship, Liquidated Claim, Triable Issue
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Lease Agreement Suretyship Liquidated Claim Triable Issue

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danton Pub CC

Appellant

Danile Johannes Bredenkamp Hamman

Appellant

Johan Anton Swanepoel

Appellant

Marthinus Cornelius Human

Appellant

Lynwood Forum

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement attached to the summons differs materially from the agreement signed by all parties.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's claim is for a liquidated amount in money given the dispute over rental and deposit.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants disclosed a bona fide defence sufficient to resist summary judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants raised triable issues regarding the authenticity and terms of the lease agreement, specifically the alleged alterations to pages 7 and 35 and the dispute over the deposit and rental amounts. These issues could not be resolved on summary judgment and required ventilation at trial. The liability of the sureties was contingent on the respondent proving its claim against the principal debtor, which was also disputed. Given the drastic nature of summary judgment proceedings and the existence of bona fide defences, the court held that summary judgment ought not to have been granted and that the appellants should be allowed to defend the action.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; summary judgment set aside; appellants granted leave to defend.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of Collis AJ is set aside and replaced with: