1
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, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 002513/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: [N]
(3) REVISED: [N]
(4) Signature:
Date: 08/05/26
In the matter between:
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND First Applicant
PROCPROPS 60 (PTY) LTD Second Applicant
and
GO CLOUD IT (PTY) LTD First Respondent
ARNOLD STEYNBERG Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kumalo J
2
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed application for summary judgment against the First and
Second Respondents, for payment of arrears of rental and other charges,
interest, and costs.
[2] The Applicants’ claim arises from a commercial lease agreement concluded
between the Applicants and the First Respondent, the subject matter of which
is the commercial premises situated at Shop G[...] and G[...], Parkview
Shopping Center, Moretela Park, Pretoria, Gauteng.
[3] The Applicants contended that the First Respondent breached the terms of
the lease agreement by failing to make full and punctual payment of the
monthly rental amounts and ancillary charges, and was accordingly entitled to
cancel the agreement and claim the eviction of the First Respondent, as well
as payment of the indebtedness amount towards arrear rental and ancillary
charges.
[4] The Second Respondent is bound as surety and co-principal debtor.
[5] For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to by their original citations
as Plaintiff and Defendant.
[6] The Plaintiffs’ original claim, as per their summons, was for R361 642.03 and
interest thereon at the rate of 11.75% per annum a tempore morae.
3
[7] The plaintiff s also sought confirmation of the cancellation of the lease
agreement and the eviction of the First Defendant and/or other occupant s of
the leased premises.
[8] The Defendant s pleaded and denied the liability as claimed by the Plaintif.
They state that , under the lease agreement entered into on 22 May 2022 by
the parties, they were not liable for the payment of rent for the period from 1
October 2021 to 31 December 2021 in the amount of R258 779.78. Thus, the
Defendants contended that the particulars of the claim do not disclose a
cause of action to the extent that the Plaintiffs claim amounts for debts
incurred before the pleaded commencement date of the lease agreement.
[9] To this end, the Defendants raised a point in limine that the particulars of
claim are excipiable.
[10] The Defendants further, in their affidavit resisting summary judgment, raised
another point in limine, namely that part of the Applicants’ claim is prescribed.
[11] Defendants fu rther alleged that the Plaintiff s currently hold a deposit in the
amount of R51 451.90, and based on the above, they are liable for
R51 410.35 and tendered the same.
[12] Further, the Defendant s pleaded that the premises , namely the Parkview
Shopping Center, are poorly maintained, with large cracks in the basement,
4
cracked walls, and a leaking roof, rendering the property untenable for
occupation. Their complaints have be en unattended to by the Plaintiff s for
months, with no action taken to address the seeping water and the poorly
maintained Shopping Center.
[13] In matters of a summary judgment application, it is trite that the defendant is
required to disclose fully the nature and grounds of the defence and the
material facts relied upon therefore. In Breitenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk 1 the
locus classicus dicta was laid down that bold, vague and sketchy defences
should not be countenanced.
[14] In the matter of Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stocks Mavundla Zek Joint
Venture2, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the rationale behind
summary judgment applications are impeccable. The procedure is not
intended to deprive a defendant with a triable issue or a sustainable defence
of his/her day in court. In considering whether a defendant does indeed have
a triable issue or sustainable defence, the court should first consider whether
there was a sufficient disclosure by the defendant of the defence sought to be
relied upon. Secondly, it should be considered whether the defence so
disclosed is bona fide and good in law.
[15] In this matter, t he Defendant s allege that an implied term of the lease
agreement was that the Plaintiffts would properly maintain the Shopping
Center, and that the Plaintiffs have failed to do so.
1 1976 (2) SA 226(T) at 229F-H
2 2009 (5) SA 1 (SCA) at 11G-12D
5
[16] The Defendants further, took issue in the opposing affidavit with the P laintiff’s
claim that is not encompassed by the lease agreement. In response to the
above, the Plaintiff appears to have accepted the situation as outlined by the
defendants and sought to proceed with a lesser amount of R141 845.46,
seeking summary judgment for that amount.
[17] This, to my mind, is an admission that the claim as pleaded is open to attack.
The defendants have raised a triable issue, and summary judgment cannot be
granted in that regard. This, however, is not the end of the matter.
[18] The Defendants , in their own calculations , acknowledged that they a re
indebted to the plaintiffs in the amount of R51 410.35, calculated as follows:
Plaintiffs’ claim: R361 642.03
Less Rental 1/10 -31/12/2021 R258 779.78
Less: Deposit R 51 451.90
TOTAL: R 51 410.35
[19] As already alluded to in paragraph 10 above, the D efendants tendered the
same to the Plaintiffs.
[20] The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that they are entitled to R141 845.46.
It was argued that this is because, under the agreement, the D efendants are
6
precluded from deducting any amounts from the rent. I am of the view that this
also raises a triable issue.
[21] In the light of the fact that the Defendants tendered to pay the amount t that
they conceded to owe to the Plaintiffs, I am of the view that Plaintiffs should
carry the costs as the defendants have been the more successful party in
these proceedings.
[22] In the circumstances, the following order is made:
1. Summary judgment is granted against the First and Second
Defendants, jointly and severally, in solidum , the one paying the other
to be absolved an amount of R51 410.35;
2. Summary judgment is r efused for the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claim;
and
3. The P laintiffs are to pay the costs of this application on scale A,
including costs of counsel.
________________
MP Kumalo
Judge of the High Court, Pretoria
7
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
Appearances:
For the plaintiffs: Adv LA Pretorius
Instructed by: Mark Efstratiou Incs
For the defendants: Adv JJ Scheepers
Instructed by: Bennecke Thom Inc