Northern Centre Shareblock (Pty) Ltd and Another v Dancing Beauty and Hair (Pty) Ltd (19633/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 796 (9 December 2021)

Northern Centre Shareblock (Pty) Ltd and Another v Dancing Beauty and Hair (Pty) Ltd (19633/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 796 (9 December 2021)

The respondent failed to pay the full rental as required by the written lease agreement and did not remedy the breach after demand. The respondent's denials and allegations of oral agreements are unsupported by sufficient factual detail or evidence and are precluded by the lease's express non-variation and non-waiver clauses. The force majeure defence based on the Covid-19 pandemic is not substantiated by evidence of objective impossibility, and the lease expressly excludes remission of rental for any reason. The respondent's occupation of the property is therefore unlawful, and the applicants are entitled to an eviction order.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 796
Parties
Applicant: Northern Centre Shareblock (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Urban Real Estate (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dancing Beauty and Hair (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2021
Case Number
19633/2021
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondent found in unlawful occupation and ordered to vacate property.
Judges
Q Leech
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Termination, Force Majeure, Arrear Rental, Oral Variation, Remission of Rent
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Termination Force Majeure Arrear Rental Oral Variation Remission of Rent

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Northern Centre Shareblock (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Urban Real Estate (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Dancing Beauty and Hair (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in unlawful occupation of the property following termination of the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's alleged oral agreements and force majeure defence preclude eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to remission or reduction of rental due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to pay the full rental as required by the written lease agreement and did not remedy the breach after demand. The respondent's denials and allegations of oral agreements are unsupported by sufficient factual detail or evidence and are precluded by the lease's express non-variation and non-waiver clauses. The force majeure defence based on the Covid-19 pandemic is not substantiated by evidence of objective impossibility, and the lease expressly excludes remission of rental for any reason. The respondent's occupation of the property is therefore unlawful, and the applicants are entitled to an eviction order.

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondent found in unlawful occupation and ordered to vacate property.

Orders

  • The respondent and all those occupying the property by, through or under it, are evicted from the property known as Republic Place, Shop 11, Republic Place, Hill Street, Ferndale, Randburg, Erf 886, Ferndale Township, Registration Division I.Q., Gauteng.
  • The respondent and all those occupying the property by, through or under it, shall vacate the property on or before 1 January 2022.