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          _______________
                                                SIGNATURE

In the matter between:

TEXTON PROPERTY FUND LIMITED					Applicant
Registration Number: 2005/019302/06

and

MAXINE GUNZENHAUSER AND COMPANY 				1st Respondent
INCORPORATED T/A MG LAW
Registration Number: 2019/575014/21

MAXINE GUNZENHAUSER						2nd Respondent
Identity Number: 9[…]

1THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIER(S) OF THE GROUND		3rd Respondent
FLOOR, OFFICE GF-01 AND GF-02, BLOCK B,
1[…] K[…] STREET, SANDTON, 2031
______________________________________________________________________
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		:10 September 2024
DELIVERED		:10 September 2024

APPEARANCES:
Applicant		Adv S McTurk
			adv.shaun@mcturk.co.za 
			083 256 5561
Instructed by	Uys Matyeka Schwartz Attorneys
			geehan@umslaw.com 
			011 678 5280
Respondent 	Adv L Nigrini		
Instructed by	Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated t/a MG Law
			nardus@ngattorneys.co.za
			082 444 9728