Fountainhead Property Trust and Another v Gospel Direct (Pty) Ltd and Another (70335/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 249 (11 April 2014)

Fountainhead Property Trust and Another v Gospel Direct (Pty) Ltd and Another (70335/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 249 (11 April 2014)

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim rental for the period the first defendant remained in occupation after cancellation, as provided for in the lease agreement. The defendant admitted liability for this amount, and the evidence supported the claim. However, the plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to renovation costs, as the evidence showed the defendant had repaired and cleaned the premises, and the plaintiffs did not call their contractor or provide sufficient proof. The claim for future loss of rental was also not proven, as no evidence was presented. The defence that the claim could not be based on a cancelled contract was rejected, given the admitted...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 249
Parties
Plaintiff: Fountainhead Property Trust; Plaintiff: Attfund Limited; Defendant: Gospel Direct (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Lukas Hermanus Carelsen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 April 2014
Case Number
70335/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeed in respect of the rental claim; claims for renovation costs and future rental loss are dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Ebersohn AJ
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Damages for Holding Over, Suretyship, Future Rental Loss, Renovation Costs
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Damages for Holding Over Suretyship Future Rental Loss Renovation Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fountainhead Property Trust

Plaintiff

Attfund Limited

Plaintiff

Gospel Direct (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Lukas Hermanus Carelsen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim rental for the period the defendant remained in occupation after cancellation of the lease.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs proved entitlement to renovation costs after the defendant vacated the premises.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for future loss of rental after cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim rental for the period the first defendant remained in occupation after cancellation, as provided for in the lease agreement. The defendant admitted liability for this amount, and the evidence supported the claim. However, the plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to renovation costs, as the evidence showed the defendant had repaired and cleaned the premises, and the plaintiffs did not call their contractor or provide sufficient proof. The claim for future loss of rental was also not proven, as no evidence was presented. The defence that the claim could not be based on a cancelled contract was rejected, given the admitted...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeed in respect of the rental claim; claims for renovation costs and future rental loss are dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted to the plaintiffs for R93,066.75 as rental due, with interest at 14% per annum from the date of summons to payment.
  • The plaintiffs' claims for R93,964.50 (renovation costs) and R88,608.24 (future rental loss) are dismissed.