Hyprop Investment Ltd v Sophia (23649/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 151; 2012 (5) SA 220 (GSJ) (2 September 2011)

Hyprop Investment Ltd v Sophia (23649/2011) [2011] ZAGPJHC 151; 2012 (5) SA 220 (GSJ) (2 September 2011)

The court held that the lease agreement between the parties expressly provides that the landlord may effect renovations and alterations to the premises without the tenant being entitled to any remission of rent or compensation. Clause 25 of the agreement clearly excludes the common law right to remission of rent for interference caused by building works. The respondent's reliance on common law and case law is misplaced, as those authorities did not involve contracts with similar exclusionary clauses. The allegation of fraudulent non-disclosure is refuted by the express terms of the contract. The applicant's cancellation of the lease was valid and enforceable, as there was no unreasonable...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 151
Parties
Applicant: Hyprop Investment Limited; Respondent: Sophia's Restaurant CC; Respondent: Nickolas George Proxemos
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2011
Case Number
23649/2011
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant for arrear rentals and ejectment of the first respondent from the leased premises.
Judges
W L Wepener
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Remission of Rent, Commodus Usus, Contractual Exclusion of Common Law, Ejectment, Arrear Rental
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Remission of Rent Commodus Usus Contractual Exclusion of Common Law Ejectment Arrear Rental

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hyprop Investment Limited

Applicant

Sophia's Restaurant CC

Respondent

Nickolas George Proxemos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is entitled to remission of rent due to renovations affecting the use of the premises.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement validly excludes the common law right to remission of rent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant properly effected cancellation of the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the lease agreement between the parties expressly provides that the landlord may effect renovations and alterations to the premises without the tenant being entitled to any remission of rent or compensation. Clause 25 of the agreement clearly excludes the common law right to remission of rent for interference caused by building works. The respondent's reliance on common law and case law is misplaced, as those authorities did not involve contracts with similar exclusionary clauses. The allegation of fraudulent non-disclosure is refuted by the express terms of the contract. The applicant's cancellation of the lease was valid and enforceable, as there was no unreasonable...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant for arrear rentals and ejectment of the first respondent from the leased premises.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted summary judgment as per prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of application for summary judgment dated 20 July 2011.
  • Interest on the arrear rental is to run from the date of service of summons, being 24 June 2011.