Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Great Cormorant Investments 75 (Pty) Limited (23073/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 177 (25 February 2025)

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Great Cormorant Investments 75 (Pty) Limited (23073/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 177 (25 February 2025)

The court found that the determination of the rental amount was subject to arbitration, and until the arbitrator handed down the award, the amount was not certain or recoverable. The arbitration award on 18 September 2020 marked the date when the debt became due and prescription commenced running. The summons were issued and served within three years of the award, thus within the prescribed period. The arbitration process suspended the running of prescription, as the dispute regarding the rental calculation was the subject of arbitration. The defendant's argument that prescription commenced on 23 June 2016 was rejected, as the resolution was interim and subject to the arbitration outcome....

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 177
Parties
Plaintiff: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Defendant: Great Cormorant Investments 75 (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2025
Case Number
23073/2022
Procedural Posture
Special Plea Application / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dlamini
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Lease Agreement Dispute, Arbitration Award Finality, Running of Prescription, Contractual Interpretation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Lease Agreement Dispute Arbitration Award Finality Running of Prescription Contractual Interpretation

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Plaintiff

Great Cormorant Investments 75 (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Plea Application / Judgment on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Determination of the date on which the debt became due for the purposes of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration process suspended the running of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the determination of the rental amount was subject to arbitration, and until the arbitrator handed down the award, the amount was not certain or recoverable. The arbitration award on 18 September 2020 marked the date when the debt became due and prescription commenced running. The summons were issued and served within three years of the award, thus within the prescribed period. The arbitration process suspended the running of prescription, as the dispute regarding the rental calculation was the subject of arbitration. The defendant's argument that prescription commenced on 23 June 2016 was rejected, as the resolution was interim and subject to the arbitration outcome....

Court Disposition

The defendant's special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant’s application of special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.