Transarc Investments (Pty) Ltd v DKM Healthcare (Pty) Ltd (4233/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 32 (6 May 2025)

Transarc Investments (Pty) Ltd v DKM Healthcare (Pty) Ltd (4233/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 32 (6 May 2025)

The defendant failed to disclose sufficient facts to establish a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for cancellation and eviction. The lease agreement clearly places responsibility for zoning and permits on the defendant, and contains explicit clauses excluding the landlord's liability for fitness for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAECMHC 32
Parties
Applicant: Transarc Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: DKM Healthcare (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
4233/2024
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Delivery of Plea and Opposing Affidavit
Outcome
Application for summary judgment granted; lease cancelled; eviction ordered; costs awarded on attorney-and-client scale.
Judges
JGA Laing
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Summary Judgment, Contractual Waiver, Public Policy in Contract, Zoning and Land Use, Counterclaim for Damages
Land and Property Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Summary Judgment Contractual Waiver Public Policy in Contract Zoning and Land Use +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transarc Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

DKM Healthcare (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Delivery of Plea and Opposing Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for cancellation and eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the lack of zoning for the premises constitutes a valid defence to eviction and cancellation.
  3. 3 Whether contractual clauses excluding landlord liability for zoning or fitness for purpose are contrary to public policy or constitutional values.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to disclose sufficient facts to establish a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for cancellation and eviction. The lease agreement clearly places responsibility for zoning and permits on the defendant, and contains explicit clauses excluding the landlord's liability for fitness for purpose and waiving any relaxation of rights. The defendant's allegations regarding zoning and public policy are inadequately pleaded and unsupported by material facts. There is no evidence of unequal bargaining power or infringement of constitutional values that would render the no-warranty clause unenforceable. The defendant's counterclaim and reliance on SPLUMA do not raise a...

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment granted; lease cancelled; eviction ordered; costs awarded on attorney-and-client scale.

Orders

  • With effect from 1 July 2025, the lease agreement concluded on 13 March 2023 at Mthatha is cancelled.
  • The defendant is evicted from the premises situated at erf 435 Mthatha.