Government Employees Pension Fund v Minister of Public Works (176/07) [2007] ZANWHC 26 (28 June 2007)

Government Employees Pension Fund v Minister of Public Works (176/07) [2007] ZANWHC 26 (28 June 2007)

The court found that the respondent had entered into a binding agreement to vacate shops 53A and 57 by 31 May 2007, and its continued occupation was unlawful. The respondent's defences were rejected: the matter was urgent as acknowledged in the lease; the Inter Governmental Relations Framework Act did not apply to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Government Employees Pension Fund; Respondent: Minister of Public Works
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2007
Case Number
176/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application for Eviction
Outcome
Application granted; eviction order confirmed; costs awarded to applicant except for replying affidavit costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Cancellation, Urgent Application, Condonation of Late Filing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Cancellation Urgent Application Condonation of Late Filing

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Government Employees Pension Fund

Applicant

Minister of Public Works

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application for Eviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement between the applicant and respondent was validly cancelled.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to vacate the premises by the agreed date.
  3. 3 Whether the matter was urgent and condonation for late filing should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had entered into a binding agreement to vacate shops 53A and 57 by 31 May 2007, and its continued occupation was unlawful. The respondent's defences were rejected: the matter was urgent as acknowledged in the lease; the Inter Governmental Relations Framework Act did not apply to the applicant; the authority of the deponent was established; no further notice to vacate was required under the agreement; and the alleged condition regarding shop 55's readiness was not an express term and, even if implied, did not assist the respondent, as its own failure to complete necessary work prevented occupation. The court granted condonation for the late filing of the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; eviction order confirmed; costs awarded to applicant except for replying affidavit costs.

Orders

  • The forms and service provided for in the rules of court are dispensed with and the matter is heard as urgent.
  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the replying affidavit.