About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 296
|
|
OBG Group (Pty) Ltd v More And More Chickens CC T/A OBC Louis Trichardt (52583/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 296 (12 January 2010)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG
DIV ISION)
CASE
NO.: 52583/09
DATE:
12 JANUARY 2010
In the matter
between
OBG GROUP (PTY)
LTD
.............................................................................................
Applicant
And
MORE AND MORE
CHICKENS CC
T/A OBC LOUIS
TRICHARDT
...........................................................................
Respondent
CORAM: EBERSOHN
AJ
DATE HEARD: 22ND
SEPTEMBER 2008
JUDGMENT HANDED
DOWN 12TH JANUARY 2010
JUDGMENT
EBERSOHN AJ.
[I] In this matter
the applicant applied on the- 22nd September 2008 on an urgent basis
for die ejectment of the respondent from
certain premises in Louis
Trichardt.
[2] In the founding
papers il is alleged lhat the applicant and the respondent entered
into a wrinen lease agreement which entitled
the respondent to occupy
the premises but as the respondent was in breach of the agreement,
the agreement was allegedly cancelled
by the applicant during 2008.
[3] The respondent
opposed the application.
[41 The applicant
alleged that on the 25th September 2008 a letter was addressed to the
respondent's attorneys in terms of the agreement,
advising the
respondent to rectify its alleged breaches of the agreement within 14
days.
[5] On the 30th
September 2008 the respondents' attorneys in writing disputed the
breaches and the amount of the alleged breach.
[6] The applicant
also alleged that the respondent was in breach of the agreement as
regarding the interest in a firm called Chicken
and Meat Palace.
[7] The applicant
alleged that already on 21 October 2008 the applicant by a letter of
their attorneys elected to cancel the agreement.
[8] It appears that
thereafter the cancellation of the franchise agreement had reached a
stalemate. The respondent instituted action
against the applicant on
13 November 2008 under case number 53217/2008 in terms whereof the
respondent claimed R2 260071.84 from
the applicant
[91 The applicant
allegedly gave further notice to the respondent to vacate the
premises by no later than 28 February 2009 and on
8th July 2009 the
respondent's refusal to vacate, was made clear to the applicant in
writing by the respondent's attorneys.
[ 10] It is so that
when the application was brought urgency had passed and that the
applicant unduly delay ed the bringing of the
application.
[11] The following
order is accordingly made:
1. The application
is struck from the roll with costs.
P.Z. EBERSOHN
ACTING JUDGE OF
THE HIGH COURT
Counsel for
applicant Adv. F.H. Odendaal SC
and Adv. G«l.
Nel
Applicant's
attornevs NEIL ESTERHUIZEN INC.
do MACINTOSH
CROSS & FARQUHARSON
Tel. 012-323 1406
Ref. J. Jooste
Counsel for the
respondents Adv. A.P. den Hartog
Respondents'
attorney MORNE COETZEE ATTORNEYS
012-460 2020 Ref.
M .Cootzee H-HM-1711