Lisinfo Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lunem Learning Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023-052134) [2023] ZAGPJHC 726 (26 June 2023)
The respondents were in substantial breach of their lease obligations, with significant arrears and failure to pay rent and other charges despite repeated written demands. The lease agreement provided for cancellation in such circumstances, and the applicants lawfully cancelled the lease. The respondents' pre-emptive right to purchase the property lapsed due to arrears, and no steps were taken to enforce it. The fact that the premises were used for a school does not shield the respondents from eviction under commercial law. The urgency was justified by the impending transfer of the property to a purchaser, and the applicants' obligation to deliver vacant occupation. The second applicant,...
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 726
- Parties
- Applicant: Lisinfo Trading (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Saunders, Stuart Alan John; Respondent: Lunem Learning Centre (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lunem Learning Centre School; Respondent: Xoliswa Karenga; Respondent: The MEC of Education, Gauteng
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2023
- Case Number
- 2023-052134
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Order After Urgent Application
- Outcome
- Application granted. Eviction order issued against first and second respondents and all who occupy through them, with time allowed for orderly evacuation.
- Judges
- Moorcroft
- Legal Topics
- Eviction, Commercial Lease, Holding Over, Representation of Companies, Arrear Rental, Pre Emptive Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lisinfo Trading (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Saunders, Stuart Alan John
Applicant
Lunem Learning Centre (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Lunem Learning Centre School
Respondent
Xoliswa Karenga
Respondent
The MEC of Education, Gauteng
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order After Urgent Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to evict the first and second respondents from the commercial property due to breach of lease and arrears.
- 2 Whether the second applicant, as sole director and advocate, may represent the first applicant company in court.
- 3 Whether the respondents retain any pre-emptive right to purchase the property despite arrears.
Ratio Decidendi
The respondents were in substantial breach of their lease obligations, with significant arrears and failure to pay rent and other charges despite repeated written demands. The lease agreement provided for cancellation in such circumstances, and the applicants lawfully cancelled the lease. The respondents' pre-emptive right to purchase the property lapsed due to arrears, and no steps were taken to enforce it. The fact that the premises were used for a school does not shield the respondents from eviction under commercial law. The urgency was justified by the impending transfer of the property to a purchaser, and the applicants' obligation to deliver vacant occupation. The second applicant,...
Court Disposition
Application granted. Eviction order issued against first and second respondents and all who occupy through them, with time allowed for orderly evacuation.
Orders
- The second applicant is permitted to represent the first applicant in these proceedings.
- The first and second respondents and all who occupy by or through them must vacate Erf No. 388, Portion No. 97 of the farm Diepsloot, Johannesburg, also known as Plot 97, Ridge Road, Diepsloot, Johannesburg, before or on 30 September 2023.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment