REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2025/040312
(1) pte see og !NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/ NO
(3) REVISED: YES / .
ye CY 724” -_
DATE
In the matter between:
LESED!I LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant
and
HEIDELBERG BEER FESTIVAL CC Respondent
JUDGMENT
MAKAMU, J
[1] This urgent application was brought by Lesedi Local Municipality (“the
Municipality) as an interdict, initially seeking an interim order. It subsequently
sought final relief against Heidelberg Beer Festival CC (“the respondent”), ,
represented by its sole member, Mr. Bouwe Wiersma, a practising attorney. The
respondent opposed the application, stating that he had been in peaceful and
undisturbed possession of the property and had operated a business there under
a 19-year lease term, which was an improved term of the initial five years.
[2] It is common cause that the respondent applied to lease the Heidelberg Heritage
Museum from the applicant, who is the owner of the property. The
Municipal Council approved the lease of the property to the respondent;
however, no lease agreement was concluded with the respondent or any other
person
[3] It is common cause that the respondent failed to pay the required rental amount.
It further operated the business and sub-let the premises to third parties to
conduct their business on the premises.
[4] The issue in this matter is that the respondent occupied the building without a
signed lease agreement; failed to pay rent to the Municipality; and did not settle
the electricity charges until the Municipality cut the electricity supply. The
respondent further refused to vacate the property despite the applicant's
numerous correspondences and multiple court actions against it.
Brief Background
[5] The Respondent applied to lease the Heidelberg Heritage Motor Museum. It
relied on the Council’s resolution and correspondence from the applicant's
officials as a positive indication of approval. The applicant denies signing any
lease agreement; nevertheless, the respondent occupied the premises after the
City Manager refused to sign the lease. All subsequent litigation between the
parties was decided against the respondent.
[6] The Respondent submitted that it relied on a Council resolution and extensive
correspondence to justify occupying the building but conceded that no lease
agreement was signed. The applicant acknowledged the resolutions and
correspondence but emphasised that the City Manager never executed the lease
agreement.
2
[7] Upon occupation, the respondent leased part of the premises as a restaurant to
Agler’s Heidelberg Tap and Grill (‘Aglers”)without applicant's consent. The
applicant submitted that, in any event, the respondent lacked authority to sub-
lease the premises to a third party, as it held no valid lease agreement with the
Municipality.
Submissions by the Parties
[8] The applicant submitted that the respondent lodged a complaint regarding the
state of the building's condition and also notified the SAPS in writing of these
concerns.
[9] In response, the applicant instructed ‘the respondent to cease business
operations and vacate the premises on safety grounds for the public. The
applicant further asserted that, lacking a written lease signed by both parties, the
respondent had no right of occupation.
[10] The respondent submitted that it occupied the building from 2016 and
commenced business operations in 2019. The applicant submitted that during
this period, the respondent failed to pay for municipal services and electricity until
the applicant terminated the electricity supply. Consequently, Agler’s was forced
to use a generator at significant expense.
[11] The Applicant served notices on the respondent and other unlawful occupiers to
vacate the premises. Agler’s notified its patrons of the closure and vacated the
premises, but the respondent remained in occupation.
[12] The respondent's refusal to cease business operations and vacate the premises
prompted the applicant to institute these proceedings.
Urgency
[13] The applicant submitted that the matter is urgent based on the following grounds:
(a) The respondent has occupied the premises for many years without paying
rental;
3