Transnet SOC Ltd v Stone Sensation and Another (68360/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 749 (10 August 2016)

Transnet SOC Ltd v Stone Sensation and Another (68360/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 749 (10 August 2016)

The court found that the applicant was aware of serious disputes of fact prior to launching the application, including issues of pro rata rental, repairs, possession, and the authority to institute proceedings. The respondents established that the property was not fit for its intended purpose and that they were entitled to remission of rent under the lease. The applicant failed to demonstrate proper authorisation for the institution of proceedings, and the evidence presented did not resolve the disputes of fact. The application was therefore unsuitable for resolution by motion proceedings and deserved dismissal with costs on a punitive scale.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 749
Parties
Applicant: Transnet SOC Ltd; Respondent: Stone Sensation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Catharine Frederika Dykman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2016
Case Number
68360/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction and Payment of Arrear Rental; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Msimeki
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement Dispute, Remission of Rent, Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus, Authority to Institute Proceedings, Eviction, Disputes of Fact in Motion Proceedings
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Dispute Remission of Rent Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus Authority to Institute Proceedings Eviction Disputes of Fact in Motion Proceedings

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

Parties

Transnet SOC Ltd

Applicant

Stone Sensation (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Catharine Frederika Dykman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction and Payment of Arrear Rental; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to evict the respondents from the leased property.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are liable for payment of arrear rental to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to remission of rent due to deprivation of beneficial occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was aware of serious disputes of fact prior to launching the application, including issues of pro rata rental, repairs, possession, and the authority to institute proceedings. The respondents established that the property was not fit for its intended purpose and that they were entitled to remission of rent under the lease. The applicant failed to demonstrate proper authorisation for the institution of proceedings, and the evidence presented did not resolve the disputes of fact. The application was therefore unsuitable for resolution by motion proceedings and deserved dismissal with costs on a punitive scale.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.