Gumede and Others v Salgado Incorporated and Another (2013/8221) [2013] ZAGPJHC 168 (13 June 2013)

Gumede and Others v Salgado Incorporated and Another (2013/8221) [2013] ZAGPJHC 168 (13 June 2013)

The Respondents have raised a bona fide defence to the claim for arrear rental monies, including disputes over the existence and terms of the lease agreement and compliance with its conditions. However, no defence was advanced regarding the right to occupy the premises, and both parties confirm that no valid lease currently exists. In the absence of any alleged right or defence to occupation, the application for ejectment is granted. The remaining claims, involving factual disputes, are referred to trial. Costs are reserved as costs in the cause.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 168
Parties
Applicant: Gumede Nyangeni Saul N.O; Applicant: De Bruyn Brigitte N.O; Applicant: Petersen Isak Smolly N.O; Respondent: Salgado Incorporated; Respondent: Freitas Salgado Mariaeulalia
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Case Number
2013/8221
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed; Limited to First Claim
Outcome
Summary judgment for arrear rental monies is refused; ejectment is granted; costs are costs in the cause.
Judges
Ratshibvumo
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Lease Agreement, Ejectment, Bona Fide Defence, Suretyship
Civil Procedure Land and Property Summary Judgment Lease Agreement Ejectment Bona Fide Defence Suretyship

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gumede Nyangeni Saul N.O

Applicant

De Bruyn Brigitte N.O

Applicant

Petersen Isak Smolly N.O

Applicant

Salgado Incorporated

Respondent

Freitas Salgado Mariaeulalia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed; Limited to First Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents have raised a bona fide defence to the claim for arrear rental monies.
  2. 2 Whether the application for ejectment should be granted in the absence of a defence to occupation.
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment is appropriate given the factual disputes regarding the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents have raised a bona fide defence to the claim for arrear rental monies, including disputes over the existence and terms of the lease agreement and compliance with its conditions. However, no defence was advanced regarding the right to occupy the premises, and both parties confirm that no valid lease currently exists. In the absence of any alleged right or defence to occupation, the application for ejectment is granted. The remaining claims, involving factual disputes, are referred to trial. Costs are reserved as costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for arrear rental monies is refused; ejectment is granted; costs are costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The Respondents are granted leave to defend in respect of prayer 1 and 2.
  • Ejectment of the first Respondent or anyone claiming occupation through the first Respondent from the commercial leased premises described as Office 2014 Second floor Finance House with one basement parking bay, 25 Ernest Oppenheimer Drive, Bruma, Johannesburg Gauteng is granted, with effect from 31 July 2013.