VLP Property CC v Martjohn Trading CC (43745/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 242 (26 April 2022)

VLP Property CC v Martjohn Trading CC (43745/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 242 (26 April 2022)

The court found that the respondent did not retain any legal right to occupy the premises after the termination of the original lease agreements on 30 June 2019. The respondent's amendments to the draft new lease were material and constituted a counter-offer, which was rejected by the applicant. No new lease agreement was concluded, and the respondent's reliance on the 10 February 2020 email was misplaced, as it did not amount to acceptance. There were no material disputes of fact requiring referral to trial, and the lis pendens defence was not applicable as the action was instituted after the eviction application. The respondent's counter-application for interim relief was dismissed. The...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 242
Parties
Applicant: VLP Property CC; Respondent: Martjohn Trading CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2022
Case Number
43745/2020
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
Judges
VM Movshovich
Legal Topics
Commercial Eviction, Lease Agreement Termination, Counter Offer, Lis Pendens, Holding Over, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Commercial Eviction Lease Agreement Termination Counter Offer Lis Pendens Holding Over Costs Order

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VLP Property CC

Applicant

Martjohn Trading CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent retains any legal right to occupy the premises after the termination of the original lease agreements.
  2. 2 Whether a new lease agreement was validly concluded between the parties in January 2020.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's amendments to the draft lease constituted a counter-offer or acceptance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent did not retain any legal right to occupy the premises after the termination of the original lease agreements on 30 June 2019. The respondent's amendments to the draft new lease were material and constituted a counter-offer, which was rejected by the applicant. No new lease agreement was concluded, and the respondent's reliance on the 10 February 2020 email was misplaced, as it did not amount to acceptance. There were no material disputes of fact requiring referral to trial, and the lis pendens defence was not applicable as the action was instituted after the eviction application. The respondent's counter-application for interim relief was dismissed. The...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The counter-application is dismissed with costs.
  • The respondent and all those who occupy Shops 20, 21 and 23, Elsburg Shopping Centre, 6 Voortrekker Street, Elsburg, Johannesburg through or under the respondent are ejected from the premises.