About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 909
|
|
Textton Property Fund Limited v Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated and Others (2024/098805) [2024] ZAGPJHC 909 (10 September 2024)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 2024/098805
1.
Reportable:
2.
Of interest to other judges
3.
Revised:
10
September 2024
In the matter between:
TEXTON
PROPERTY FUND LIMITED
Registration
Number: 2005/019302/06
Applicant
and
MAXINE
GUNZENHAUSER AND COMPANY
INCORPORATED
T/A MG LAW
Registration
Number: 2019/575014/21
1
st
Respondent
MAXINE
GUNZENHAUSER
Identity
Number: 9[…]
2
nd
Respondent
1THE
UNLAWFUL OCCUPIER(S) OF THE GROUND
FLOOR,
OFFICE GF-01 AND GF-02, BLOCK B,
1[…]
K[…] STREET, SANDTON, 2031
3
rd
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1.
The applicant seeks urgently to evict
the respondents from commercial premises. The applicant says that the
lease has come to an
end.
2.
There is an allegation, somewhat
vague, that the matter is urgent because the commercial property is
valuable and an existing tenant
could take over the premises now
occupied by the first respondent.
3.
The answering affidavit shows that
the parties have been at loggerheads for some time. There are
allegations that despite what was
promised by the applicant there is
insufficient security at the premises, leading to break-ins at the
respondents’ premises.
The is an allegation of fraudulent
charging for electricity.
4.
Urgency is denied. The answering
affidavit says that the first respondent attempted to resolve
problems amicably six months ago
and that the alleged new tenant has
no agreement with the applicant to hire the premises now occupied by
the first respondent.
The allegation here for the first respondent is
that, contrary to what the applicant says, the proposed new tenant is
not expanding
into the first respondent’s premises but intends
to move from its present premises to the first respondent’s
premises.
5.
In paragraph 23.3 of the heads of
argument for the applicant it is submitted that the proposed new
tenant, already in the building
for some time, “ is interested
in taking up the property.”
6.
A belated attempt to show real
urgency by relying on an email dated yesterday, 9 September 2024 by
the proposed tenant, indicates
nothing more than an interest,
subject, at a minimum, to an inspection yet to happen.
7.
In my view there is no shown urgency.
ORDER
1.
The matter is struck off the roll
with the applicant to pay the first and second respondents’
costs, including those of an
application by the first and second
respondents to supplement their papers.
2.
Costs are to be on Scale A. -
GC
Wright
Judge
of the High Court
Gauteng
Division, Johannesburg
HEARD
DELIVERED
:10
September 2024
:10
September 2024
APPEARANCES:
Applicant
Instructed
by
Respondent
Instructed
by
Adv
S McTurk
adv.shaun@mcturk.co.za
083 256
5561
Uys
Matyeka Schwartz Attorneys
geehan@umslaw.com
011 678
5280
Adv
L Nigrini
Maxine
Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated t/a MG Law
nardus@ngattorneys.co.za
082 444
9728