Scopeful 130 (Pty) Limited v Mechani Mag (Pty) Limited (12155/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 261; 2008 (3) SA 483 (W) (1 August 2007)

Scopeful 130 (Pty) Limited v Mechani Mag (Pty) Limited (12155/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 261; 2008 (3) SA 483 (W) (1 August 2007)

The court found that the respondent failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, the existence of a tacit agreement entitling it to occupy the premises. The respondent's version was contradicted by its own attorney's correspondence and was commercially improbable. There was no evidence of unequivocal conduct indicating a meeting of the minds on any agreement other than the expired three-year lease. The respondent's defence was found to be so far-fetched and untenable as to warrant rejection on the papers. The applicant, as owner, was entitled to ejectment of the respondent from the property.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 261
Parties
Applicant: Scopeful 130 (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Mechani Mag (Pty) Limited
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2007
Case Number
12155/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Ejectment From Commercial Property
Outcome
Application granted; respondent to be ejected from the premises and to pay costs.
Judges
P.N. Levenberg
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Tacit Contract, Lease Agreement, Dispute of Fact
Land and Property Civil Procedure Ejectment Tacit Contract Lease Agreement Dispute of Fact

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scopeful 130 (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Mechani Mag (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Ejectment From Commercial Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has a right to occupy the premises after expiry of the written lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether a tacit lease agreement exists between the parties entitling the respondent to continued occupation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's version raises a bona fide dispute of fact warranting referral to trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to establish, even on a prima facie basis, the existence of a tacit agreement entitling it to occupy the premises. The respondent's version was contradicted by its own attorney's correspondence and was commercially improbable. There was no evidence of unequivocal conduct indicating a meeting of the minds on any agreement other than the expired three-year lease. The respondent's defence was found to be so far-fetched and untenable as to warrant rejection on the papers. The applicant, as owner, was entitled to ejectment of the respondent from the property.

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent to be ejected from the premises and to pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is to be ejected on 31 August 2007 from the premises at 12 Harold Flight Road, Jet Park, Boksburg, together with all persons occupying through or under it.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of the application.