Meercathoryx Property (Pty) Ltd v Burchells Bush Lodge Shareblock Ltd (2015/42556) [2017] ZAGPJHC 207 (28 July 2017)

Meercathoryx Property (Pty) Ltd v Burchells Bush Lodge Shareblock Ltd (2015/42556) [2017] ZAGPJHC 207 (28 July 2017)

The court found that the Respondent failed to submit an agreed project plan for 2015 as required by Clause 6.1 of the lease, and that the Applicant had complied with the procedural requirements for cancellation under Clause 16 by issuing proper notice and demand. The Respondent's assertion of unilateral discretion over maintenance was rejected, as the lease required agreement with the Applicant. The court held that the Applicant was entitled to cancel the lease and seek eviction on this ground. The alternative ground of late rental payment did not justify immediate cancellation and eviction, as time was not expressly stated to be of the essence in the lease. The application for eviction...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 207
Parties
Applicant: Meercathoryx Property (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Burchells Bush Lodge Shareblock Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 2017
Case Number
2015/42556
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; Respondent ordered to vacate property.
Judges
B A Mashile
Legal Topics
Lease Cancellation, Eviction, Shareblock Company, Specific Performance
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Cancellation Eviction Shareblock Company Specific Performance

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meercathoryx Property (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Burchells Bush Lodge Shareblock Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's breaches of the lease entitled the Applicant to cancel the lease.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to eject the Respondent from the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent failed to submit an agreed project plan for 2015 as required by Clause 6.1 of the lease, and that the Applicant had complied with the procedural requirements for cancellation under Clause 16 by issuing proper notice and demand. The Respondent's assertion of unilateral discretion over maintenance was rejected, as the lease required agreement with the Applicant. The court held that the Applicant was entitled to cancel the lease and seek eviction on this ground. The alternative ground of late rental payment did not justify immediate cancellation and eviction, as time was not expressly stated to be of the essence in the lease. The application for eviction...

Court Disposition

Application granted; Respondent ordered to vacate property.

Orders

  • The Respondent and all persons purporting to hold title through it are directed to vacate the property, the remaining extent of portion 332, Sabi Park, extension 1, Mpumalanga, within 14 days of date hereof.
  • Should the Respondent fail to vacate as directed, the Sheriff of this Court or his deputy is authorised to forthwith evict the Respondent and other persons in occupation from the property.