New Heights 326 (Pty) Ltd v George Bousentrum (Pty) Ltd (43659/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 72 (7 March 2008)

New Heights 326 (Pty) Ltd v George Bousentrum (Pty) Ltd (43659/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 72 (7 March 2008)

The court found that the respondent breached clause 31 of the lease agreement by changing its shareholding without the applicant's consent and failed to remedy the breach after notice. The respondent's claim of a dispute of fact was unsupported and appeared to be a delaying tactic. Furthermore, the lease expired by effluxion of time on 30 June 2007, and no valid extension was concluded as the parties did not agree on rental for the option period and did not refer the matter to arbitration. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to an eviction order.

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 72
Parties
Applicant: New Heights 326 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: George Bousentrum (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2008
Case Number
43659/2007
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction
Outcome
Application granted; respondent to be evicted from the premises and to pay costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Termination, Breach of Contract, Dispute of Fact
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Termination Breach of Contract Dispute of Fact

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Heights 326 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

George Bousentrum (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached clause 31 of the lease agreement by changing shareholding without the applicant's consent.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement was validly cancelled due to breach and failure to remedy.
  3. 3 Whether the lease expired by effluxion of time and no valid extension was concluded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent breached clause 31 of the lease agreement by changing its shareholding without the applicant's consent and failed to remedy the breach after notice. The respondent's claim of a dispute of fact was unsupported and appeared to be a delaying tactic. Furthermore, the lease expired by effluxion of time on 30 June 2007, and no valid extension was concluded as the parties did not agree on rental for the option period and did not refer the matter to arbitration. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to an eviction order.

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent to be evicted from the premises and to pay costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is evicted from the premises known as the ground and first floors comprising a restaurant, auditorium, and conference rooms in the Mineralia Centre at 228 Visagie Street, Pretoria, including all persons claiming occupation through or under the respondent.
  • The respondent must pay the costs of the application on the attorney and client scale as provided for in the lease agreement.