Proc Corp 160 (Pty) Limited v Interactive Trading 626 (Pty) Limited and Another (36167/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 189 (16 March 2015)

Proc Corp 160 (Pty) Limited v Interactive Trading 626 (Pty) Limited and Another (36167/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 189 (16 March 2015)

The court found that the plaintiff misconceived the nature of the first defendant's restoration obligation under the lease. The lease required restoration to the condition at commencement, which was a fitted Spur restaurant, not an empty 'clean shell'. The plaintiff's claim and expert evidence were largely irrelevant as they were based on the wrong premise. The court accepted the defendant's evidence that only limited damage occurred during relocation and that most of the damage was likely caused by contractors engaged by the plaintiff after vacating. Only two items—painting and roof repairs—were proved as damages attributable to the defendant, with the quantum calculated accordingly. The...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 189
Parties
Plaintiff: Proc Corp 160 (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Interactive Trading 626 (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Andre George Lubbe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2015
Case Number
36167/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for R19,035.72; no order as to costs.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Damages for Breach, Restoration of Premises, Quantification of Loss
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Damages for Breach Restoration of Premises Quantification of Loss

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Proc Corp 160 (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Interactive Trading 626 (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Andre George Lubbe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the extent of the first defendant's obligation to restore the leased premises under the lease agreement upon termination.
  2. 2 Whether the damages claimed by the plaintiff for restoration to a 'clean shell' are recoverable under the lease.
  3. 3 Who bears responsibility for the damage to the premises after the defendant vacated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff misconceived the nature of the first defendant's restoration obligation under the lease. The lease required restoration to the condition at commencement, which was a fitted Spur restaurant, not an empty 'clean shell'. The plaintiff's claim and expert evidence were largely irrelevant as they were based on the wrong premise. The court accepted the defendant's evidence that only limited damage occurred during relocation and that most of the damage was likely caused by contractors engaged by the plaintiff after vacating. Only two items—painting and roof repairs—were proved as damages attributable to the defendant, with the quantum calculated accordingly. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for R19,035.72; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant for the sum of R19,035.72.
  • There is no order as to costs.