Geiger Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd (26037/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 165 (31 March 2022)

Geiger Enterprise (Pty) Ltd v Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd (26037/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 165 (31 March 2022)

The court found that the respondent's lease was lawfully cancelled and that the applicant is the registered owner of the premises. The respondent's continued occupation is unlawful, and its reliance on a Windeed Search to dispute ownership is unfounded given the applicant's production of the original title deed and notarial cession. The respondent's claim to an improvement lien was raised belatedly and is contractually excluded by the lease agreement, which expressly precludes compensation for improvements. Even if a lien could notionally exist, the applicant's tender to allow removal of improvements and offer of substituted security negates any right to remain in occupation. The...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 165
Parties
Applicant: Geiger Enterprise (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Case Number
26037/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Eviction
Outcome
Application for eviction granted; respondent and all persons occupying through it are ordered to vacate the premises forthwith. Costs awarded against respondent on attorney and client scale.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Termination, Improvement Lien, Unlawful Occupation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Termination Improvement Lien Unlawful Occupation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geiger Enterprise (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Eviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is unlawfully occupying the premises after termination of the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has a valid improvement lien entitling it to remain in occupation.
  3. 3 Whether the identity and ownership of the premises is disputed on any substantive basis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's lease was lawfully cancelled and that the applicant is the registered owner of the premises. The respondent's continued occupation is unlawful, and its reliance on a Windeed Search to dispute ownership is unfounded given the applicant's production of the original title deed and notarial cession. The respondent's claim to an improvement lien was raised belatedly and is contractually excluded by the lease agreement, which expressly precludes compensation for improvements. Even if a lien could notionally exist, the applicant's tender to allow removal of improvements and offer of substituted security negates any right to remain in occupation. The...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction granted; respondent and all persons occupying through it are ordered to vacate the premises forthwith. Costs awarded against respondent on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent and all persons/entities occupying through it are forthwith evicted from Section 4 and Garden G3, Sunderland Ridge Ext 29, 592 Baralong Street, Icon Industrial Park, Centurion.
  • Upon service of this order, the premises must be vacated immediately.