Pareto Limited v Credonamix CC t/a Portobello (2019/27944) [2020] ZAGPJHC 224 (6 August 2020)

Pareto Limited v Credonamix CC t/a Portobello (2019/27944) [2020] ZAGPJHC 224 (6 August 2020)

The respondent failed to establish any breach of the lease agreement by the applicant. Clause 29.1 did not impose an obligation on the applicant to obtain the respondent's consent before changing the tenant mix. Clause 13.2 expressly denied any right of exclusivity to the respondent. The respondent's further complaints regarding the marketing fund and advertising did not correspond to any positive obligation in the lease. As there was no breach, the respondent's opposition to ejectment failed. It was common cause that the lease had been cancelled and no extant lease existed, so the respondent had no right to remain in occupation. The applicant's application for ejectment succeeded and the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 224
Parties
Applicant: Pareto Limited; Respondent: Credonamix CC t/a Portobello
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2020
Case Number
2019/27944
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application granted; respondent's counter-application dismissed.
Judges
Gilbert
Legal Topics
Lease Cancellation, Ejectment, Breach of Contract, Tenant Mix, Arrear Rentals
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Cancellation Ejectment Breach of Contract Tenant Mix Arrear Rentals

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

Parties

Pareto Limited

Applicant

Credonamix CC t/a Portobello

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement between the applicant and respondent was validly cancelled.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to remain in occupation of the premises after cancellation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant breached the lease agreement by changing the tenant mix without the respondent's consent.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to establish any breach of the lease agreement by the applicant. Clause 29.1 did not impose an obligation on the applicant to obtain the respondent's consent before changing the tenant mix. Clause 13.2 expressly denied any right of exclusivity to the respondent. The respondent's further complaints regarding the marketing fund and advertising did not correspond to any positive obligation in the lease. As there was no breach, the respondent's opposition to ejectment failed. It was common cause that the lease had been cancelled and no extant lease existed, so the respondent had no right to remain in occupation. The applicant's application for ejectment succeeded and the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent's counter-application dismissed.

Orders

  • It is confirmed that the lease agreement between the applicant and the respondent was validly cancelled on 22 July 2019.
  • The respondent and all those occupying the premises by, through or under the respondent are ejected from Shop L50, Cresta Shopping Centre, Cnr Beyers Naude and Weltevreden Road, Cresta Extension 4, Johannesburg.