Kmatt Properties (Pty) Ltd v Sandton Square Portion 8 (Pty) Ltd and Another (06/21283) [2006] ZAGPHC 105; [2007] 3 All SA 256 (W); 2007 (5) SA 475 (W) (8 December 2006)

Kmatt Properties (Pty) Ltd v Sandton Square Portion 8 (Pty) Ltd and Another (06/21283) [2006] ZAGPHC 105; [2007] 3 All SA 256 (W); 2007 (5) SA 475 (W) (8 December 2006)

The court found that the agreement, properly interpreted, contemplated the reservation of exclusive use rights for the applicant in terms of section 27A of the Sectional Titles Act, via management rules, and not by notarial deed under section 27(1). The relevant clauses, when read together, indicated that exclusive use rights would be allocated through the management rules, which provide adequate protection and security for such rights. The applicant's interpretation was rejected. Consequently, the main application was dismissed. Regarding the counter-application, the court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement precluded it from adjudicating the respondent's claim for...

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 105
Parties
Applicant: Kmatt Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sandton Square Portion 8 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds Pretoria
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2006
Case Number
06/21283
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Main Application, Counter Application, and Rule 30 Application
Outcome
The main application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The counter-application is dismissed with costs. The Rule 30 application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
P Blieden
Legal Topics
Sectional Title, Exclusive Use Rights, Contract Interpretation, Arbitration Clause, Rule 30 Irregular Step
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sectional Title Exclusive Use Rights Contract Interpretation Arbitration Clause Rule 30 Irregular Step

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kmatt Properties (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sandton Square Portion 8 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Main Application, Counter Application, and Rule 30 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct manner for reserving exclusive use rights of parking bays under the agreement?
  2. 2 Does the agreement require reservation under section 27(1) or section 27A of the Sectional Titles Act?
  3. 3 Should the court entertain the respondent's counter-application or refer it to arbitration under clause 30?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the agreement, properly interpreted, contemplated the reservation of exclusive use rights for the applicant in terms of section 27A of the Sectional Titles Act, via management rules, and not by notarial deed under section 27(1). The relevant clauses, when read together, indicated that exclusive use rights would be allocated through the management rules, which provide adequate protection and security for such rights. The applicant's interpretation was rejected. Consequently, the main application was dismissed. Regarding the counter-application, the court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement precluded it from adjudicating the respondent's claim for...

Court Disposition

The main application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The counter-application is dismissed with costs. The Rule 30 application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The applicant's main application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
  • The first respondent's counter-application is dismissed with costs.