Pinzon Traders (Pty) Ltd and Another v Clublink Pty Ltd and Others (752/2022) [2022] ZAECMKHC 12 (17 May 2022)

Pinzon Traders (Pty) Ltd and Another v Clublink Pty Ltd and Others (752/2022) [2022] ZAECMKHC 12 (17 May 2022)

The court found that the applicants established a prima facie right under the 2009 agreement, which prohibits the respondents from permitting the development of a supermarket on the property while the first applicant remains a tenant. The evidence showed that the proposed Clicks Store would sell foods and household...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAECMKHC 12
Parties
Applicant: Pinzon Traders 8 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mark William Shelton; Respondent: Clublink (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Robert John Beer; Respondent: Clicks Retailers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Makana Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Case Number
752/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Pending Action
Outcome
Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicants; costs reserved for determination at trial.
Judges
Ronaasen
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Interim Interdict, Lease Agreement, Building Regulations, Competition Law Defence, Parking Requirements
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Interim Interdict Lease Agreement Building Regulations Competition Law Defence +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pinzon Traders 8 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mark William Shelton

Applicant

Clublink (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Robert John Beer

Respondent

Clicks Retailers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Makana Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Pending Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining the respondents from leasing premises to Clicks or permitting occupation for a Clicks Store on the property.
  2. 2 Whether the construction of the building is proceeding lawfully and in compliance with approved building plans and the Integrated Land Use Scheme.
  3. 3 Whether the 2009 agreement is enforceable or void for being anti-competitive.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants established a prima facie right under the 2009 agreement, which prohibits the respondents from permitting the development of a supermarket on the property while the first applicant remains a tenant. The evidence showed that the proposed Clicks Store would sell foods and household goods, meeting the definition of a supermarket in the agreement. The urgency was justified due to the imminent occupation and risk of irreparable harm. The building plans had not been validly approved by the local authority, and the construction was proceeding unlawfully and in non-compliance with parking requirements. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, as...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted in favour of the applicants; costs reserved for determination at trial.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are interdicted from leasing premises to the third respondent or permitting occupation by the third respondent on erf [....] Makhanda for the purposes of operating a Clicks Store.
  • The first and second respondents are interdicted from constructing or continuing to construct the building on the relevant portions of erf [....] Makhanda.