EME Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Biprops 46 (Pty) Ltd (A606/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 127 (24 March 2017)

EME Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Biprops 46 (Pty) Ltd (A606/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 127 (24 March 2017)

The court found that neither of the appellants' defences constituted a bona fide defence in law. The first defence, based on the lease agreement's cancellation clause and the alleged absence of a remedy for specific performance, was unsubstantiated and contrary to established legal principles regarding repudiation and contractual remedies. The second defence, relying on the Consumer Protection Act, failed because section 14 of the CPA does not apply to transactions between juristic persons, and the suretyship agreement is accessory to the principal lease agreement, which also falls outside the CPA. The court held that the respondent was entitled to uphold the contract and claim arrear...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 127
Parties
Appellant: EME Investments (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Eben van der Berg; Respondent: Biprops 46 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Case Number
A606/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and own client.
Judges
Ellis, Basasson
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Lease Agreement, Repudiation, Specific Performance, Suretyship, Consumer Protection Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Lease Agreement Repudiation Specific Performance Suretyship Consumer Protection Act

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EME Investments (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Eben van der Berg

Appellant

Biprops 46 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants raised a bona fide defence to the respondent's summary judgment application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to claim arrear rental and specific performance following repudiation of the lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 applies to the suretyship and lease agreement between juristic persons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither of the appellants' defences constituted a bona fide defence in law. The first defence, based on the lease agreement's cancellation clause and the alleged absence of a remedy for specific performance, was unsubstantiated and contrary to established legal principles regarding repudiation and contractual remedies. The second defence, relying on the Consumer Protection Act, failed because section 14 of the CPA does not apply to transactions between juristic persons, and the suretyship agreement is accessory to the principal lease agreement, which also falls outside the CPA. The court held that the respondent was entitled to uphold the contract and claim arrear...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and own client.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and own client.