Parys-Aan-Vaal Woonstelle (Pty) Ltd and Another v Plexiphon 115 CC (3489/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 2 (20 January 2022)

Parys-Aan-Vaal Woonstelle (Pty) Ltd and Another v Plexiphon 115 CC (3489/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 2 (20 January 2022)

The court found that the respondent's answering affidavit was not properly commissioned and did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 4(1) and Rule 6(5)(d)(ii), as the gender of the deponent was not specified and there was insufficient evidence that the affidavit was sworn before a commissioner of oaths. The point in limine was upheld, and the respondent's opposition was excluded. On the uncontested facts, the lease agreement entitled the applicants to cancel the lease with six months' written notice for substantial renovations. The applicants provided the required notice and demonstrated that the renovations were substantial, as evidenced by the demolition of all shops except...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 2
Parties
Applicant: Parys-Aan-Vaal Woonstelle (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Robfair Investments No. 162 CC; Respondent: Plexiphon 115 CC
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 January 2022
Case Number
3489/2021
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application granted; eviction order issued against the respondent and costs awarded to the applicants.
Judges
Daniso
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Cancellation, Commissioning of Affidavits, Substantial Renovation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Cancellation Commissioning of Affidavits Substantial Renovation

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parys-Aan-Vaal Woonstelle (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Robfair Investments No. 162 CC

Applicant

Plexiphon 115 CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement was validly cancelled under clause 17 due to substantial renovations.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's answering affidavit was properly commissioned and compliant with procedural rules.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to remain in occupation of the premises despite the cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's answering affidavit was not properly commissioned and did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 4(1) and Rule 6(5)(d)(ii), as the gender of the deponent was not specified and there was insufficient evidence that the affidavit was sworn before a commissioner of oaths. The point in limine was upheld, and the respondent's opposition was excluded. On the uncontested facts, the lease agreement entitled the applicants to cancel the lease with six months' written notice for substantial renovations. The applicants provided the required notice and demonstrated that the renovations were substantial, as evidenced by the demolition of all shops except...

Court Disposition

Application granted; eviction order issued against the respondent and costs awarded to the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent and all those who occupy the premises through the respondent are ordered to vacate the premises at shop 13, Grootfontein Shopping Centre, Sasolburg on or before 28 February 2022.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.