Faber v Nazerian (2012/42735) [2013] ZAGPJHC 65 (15 April 2013)

Faber v Nazerian (2012/42735) [2013] ZAGPJHC 65 (15 April 2013)

The Court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondent breached the written usufruct agreement. The evidence presented did not establish that the property was not maintained as required, nor did it show that repainting was necessary for maintenance rather than a luxury. The applicant's reliance on new material in the replying affidavit was rejected, as it related to facts she ought to have known and should have included in her founding affidavit. The respondent's denial of any oral undertaking was accepted, and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of the alleged disrepair or the need for specific repairs. The Court held that the...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 65
Parties
Applicant: Faber Lola; Respondent: Nazerian Rimon
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 April 2013
Case Number
2012/42735
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Specific Performance and Enforcement of Usufruct Agreement
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Usufruct Agreement, Specific Performance, Maintenance Obligation, Motion Proceedings, Conflicting Affidavits
Land and Property Civil Procedure Usufruct Agreement Specific Performance Maintenance Obligation Motion Proceedings Conflicting Affidavits

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faber Lola

Applicant

Nazerian Rimon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Specific Performance and Enforcement of Usufruct Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the written usufruct agreement by failing to maintain the property, specifically by not repainting, replacing curtains, and purchasing a tumble dryer.
  2. 2 Whether new material introduced in the applicant's replying affidavit should be considered by the Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged the onus of proving the property was not maintained as required by the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondent breached the written usufruct agreement. The evidence presented did not establish that the property was not maintained as required, nor did it show that repainting was necessary for maintenance rather than a luxury. The applicant's reliance on new material in the replying affidavit was rejected, as it related to facts she ought to have known and should have included in her founding affidavit. The respondent's denial of any oral undertaking was accepted, and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of the alleged disrepair or the need for specific repairs. The Court held that the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent.