Relta 25 (Pty) Ltd v Dalinjabo Technical Services CC (25902/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1142 (8 November 2024)

Relta 25 (Pty) Ltd v Dalinjabo Technical Services CC (25902/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1142 (8 November 2024)

The plaintiff established its claim for damages by providing unchallenged evidence of the state of the premises upon the defendant's departure and the cost of repairs. The defendant's plea was a bare denial and failed to raise any substantive defence or challenge the evidence. The defendant's counterclaim for improvements failed as it did not establish the elements of unjust enrichment, and several items had prescribed. The deposit was set off against the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Costs were awarded on a party and party scale, as the claims were heard together and the lease only provided for attorney-client costs in enforcement actions by the plaintiff.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1142
Parties
Plaintiff: Relta 25 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Dalinjabo Technical Services CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2024
Case Number
25902/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages succeeds, reduced by the deposit; defendant's counterclaim for improvements is dismissed.
Judges
N Manoim
Legal Topics
Lease Dispute, Damages for Disrepair, Unjust Enrichment, Prescription of Claims, Set Off, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Dispute Damages for Disrepair Unjust Enrichment Prescription of Claims Set Off Costs Award

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

Parties

Relta 25 (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Dalinjabo Technical Services CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for damages to the leased premises upon vacating.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to repayment of its deposit.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to compensation for alleged improvements to the premises under unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established its claim for damages by providing unchallenged evidence of the state of the premises upon the defendant's departure and the cost of repairs. The defendant's plea was a bare denial and failed to raise any substantive defence or challenge the evidence. The defendant's counterclaim for improvements failed as it did not establish the elements of unjust enrichment, and several items had prescribed. The deposit was set off against the damages awarded to the plaintiff. Costs were awarded on a party and party scale, as the claims were heard together and the lease only provided for attorney-client costs in enforcement actions by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages succeeds, reduced by the deposit; defendant's counterclaim for improvements is dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of R265,813.
  • Interest on R265,813 at prime plus 2% from 4 June 2021 to date of payment.