Pangbourne Properties Ltd v Pulse Moving CC and Another (2009/30282, 2009/37649) [2010] ZAGPJHC 121; 2013 (3) SA 140 (GSJ) (19 November 2010)

Pangbourne Properties Ltd v Pulse Moving CC and Another (2009/30282, 2009/37649) [2010] ZAGPJHC 121; 2013 (3) SA 140 (GSJ) (19 November 2010)

The applicant was entitled to cancel the lease agreement forthwith upon non-payment of the deposit, as provided in the agreement. The deposit became due and payable on 1 July 2009 when the first cheque was dishonoured. The respondents' defences regarding the need for mora, the suspensive condition, and undue hardship were rejected. The court found that the late filing of affidavits did not prejudice either party and, in the interests of justice, admitted all affidavits. The applicant was entitled to claim damages for holding over after cancellation, and the deposit could be retained until all obligations were discharged. The respondents were ordered to pay the claimed amounts and costs on...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 121
Parties
Applicant: Pangbourne Properties Ltd; Respondent: Pulse Moving CC; Respondent: Bronkhorst, Stephanus Petrus
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2010
Case Number
2009/30282, 2009/37649
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Respondents ordered to pay the claimed amounts and costs.
Judges
W L Wepener
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Deposit Forfeiture, Holding Over Damages, Late Filing of Affidavits, Specific Performance, Attorney and Client Costs
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Deposit Forfeiture Holding Over Damages Late Filing of Affidavits Specific Performance Attorney and Client Costs

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 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pangbourne Properties Ltd

Applicant

Pulse Moving CC

Respondent

Bronkhorst, Stephanus Petrus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to cancel the lease agreement without placing the respondent in mora.
  2. 2 Whether the deposit became due and payable upon breach of the lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the late filing of affidavits should be disregarded.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was entitled to cancel the lease agreement forthwith upon non-payment of the deposit, as provided in the agreement. The deposit became due and payable on 1 July 2009 when the first cheque was dishonoured. The respondents' defences regarding the need for mora, the suspensive condition, and undue hardship were rejected. The court found that the late filing of affidavits did not prejudice either party and, in the interests of justice, admitted all affidavits. The applicant was entitled to claim damages for holding over after cancellation, and the deposit could be retained until all obligations were discharged. The respondents were ordered to pay the claimed amounts and costs on...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondents ordered to pay the claimed amounts and costs.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered jointly and severally to pay the sum of R64,879.04 to attorneys Kokinis Inc, to be held in an interest-bearing trust account pending the final determination of proceedings under case number 2010/04459.
  • The respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the applicant the sum of R45,951.32 together with interest thereon at the rate of 15.5% per annum calculated from 4 September 2009 to date of payment.