---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

Case Number: 65643/2015

A878/2015

Date: 25/5/2017

In the matter between:

HYPROP INVESTMENTS LTD                                                          APPELLANT

                                                                                                                         (RESPONDENT IN THE COURT A QUO)

And

JENNIBUTTON(PTY)LTD                                                                  RESPONDENT

                                                                                                                         (APPLICANT IN THE COURT A QUO)

INTERVENING:

JOHANNES FREDERICK KLOPPER N. O.                                    JOINT BUSINESS RESCUE

PRACTITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

                                                                                                                         (FOR APPLICANT IN THE COURT A QUO)

JACQUES DU TOIT N. O.                                                             JOINT BUSINESS RESCUE PRACTITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

                                                                                                                          (FOR APPLICANT IN THE COURT A QUO)

JUDGMENT

Fabricius J,

1.

In the Court a quo the Applicant,  being Jenni Button  (Pty)  Ltd, applied to the   Court for an order:

2.    "Directing  Applicant's  possession  of   Shops  39,     40   and  41  Woodlands Boulevard, 100  Woodlake Avenue, Pretoriuspark, Pretoria  (the premises)   to be restored immediately.

3.    Directing Respondent immediately to allow Applicant unrestricted access to the premises".

The application was brought in the Urgent Court and was argued on 22 September

2015. Judgment  was  given on  2 October  2015  by  Holland-Muter  AJ and   the application was granted.

2.

This is the appeal against such an order.

3.

The application is by its nature based on the principles of mandament van spolie and   as such a  particular Applicant   merely has  to  prove  possession and dispossession. It is a speedy remedy to protect possession and does not concern the legal right to the property.

See: Yeko v Qana 1973 (4) SA 735 (A) at 739.

4.

All that was required therefore was that the Applicant in these proceedings   file short affidavits expeditiously on the limited issues of possession and dispossession.

See:  Willow  Vale  Estates CC and Another  v  Bryanmors  Estates  Ltd  1990 (3) SA 954 Wat  961.

5.

In the Founding Affidavit, the Applicant alleged that it had been in possession of   and traded  from  the particular  premises  since December  2004,  until about  July  2015 when the Respondent  unlawfully  deprived  it  of its possession  by forcing  the locks, breaking  into  the premises  and so taking possession.  The  Founding  Affidavit  was made  by  M. P. Joubert,  who  was a  director  of  Jenni  Button, a  company  with its registered  address in Cape Town. He described  Jenni  Button  as  being a  brand on the one hand specialising in "elegant women's fashion" and on the other hand   being the principal trading company for every Jenni Button store in South Africa,    including that at Woodlands.  He added  that Jenni Button  forms part  of  the larger     Platinum Group which also owned a number of other brands, and each one of these brands had its own  principal  trading  company. He also was the Chief  Executive  Officer  of the Platinum Group and a director in all the Group trading  and entities.    Each brand conducts business across the country from leased retail premises situated in  leading shopping centres.

6.

He then set  out the "leasing  history" in  some detail  and  stated that at the time   the premises in Woodlands  were opened, namely by the first week of December    2004, Woodlands was owned by ATT Fund Ltd and he negotiated the Woodland lease  with ATT Fund.  Agreement  had been reached  on all the lease  terms  and these     were encapsulated  in  various  oral  agreements   and  other  recordals  such  as    emails,

Minutes of meetings and similar notes. No single lease document was ever signed. The agreement with ATT Fund was that as a main trading company, Jenni Button would be entitled to install a separate  Jenni  Button  Rental Enterprise  as the  tenant

at Woodlands,  once Rental Enterprise  was  formed.  Until  such  time,  Jenni  Button would occupy  and take possession of the premises  and  operate  therefrom  as   the tenant and main trading entity. No Jenni Button Rental Enterprise  was ever    formed and Jenni Button has accordingly always remained the de facto tenant and trader   at the premises.

7.

Subsequent thereto, Hyprop, the present Appellant, acquired the whole of ATI   Fund during about September  2011 and has since     been Jenni Button's landlord.  During June  2015, Hyprop issued  Summons  against  "Platinum  Clothing  Woodhill  5 CC", claiming  an  amount  for rental  and other  charges  allegedly  then  due and owing in respect  of the Jenni  Button  premises  at the Woodlands  Mall. He stated  that Jenni Button disputed this claim, because it was not against the correct party, nor  correctly computed, nor was it due and payable. He referred to the Particulars of Claim In   this context which were annexed, and the fact that Hyprop had pleaded a version of the lease   agreement   that  it   relied  on.  He  disputed   the  correctness   of  this  lease agreement, but also said that they were immaterial to the application before the Court a quo.

8.

He then gave details as to the dispossession and the correspondence between the parties in connection therewith.

9.

In the Answering Affidavit, it Is stated that the Applicant had not paid rent for a number of months and that an agreement had been entered into to the effect that if there was no  compliance  with certain of  the terms  that  were  referred to in that correspondence of 17 March 201S, the landlord would have the right to cancel the lease and take  back the  store.  This  condition  was  accepted  by  Jenni Button's representatives.

10.

Apart from that, the Respondent in the proceedings    a quo set out in great detail facts relating to a business rescue application    launched in the High Court of the Western  Cape  Division  during  July  2015.  It  was  pointed  out  that  in    those proceedings  the  same M. P.  Joubert  made  an  affidavit  describing  the  whole structure of the "Platinum Clothing Clearwater 5 CC" entity, from which it was clear that  Jenni  Button  (Pty)  Ltd  was not the  entity  that leased  the  premises in the particular  shopping  centre.  In  summary  it  was  stated  that  it  was  difficult  to understand on what basis Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd had locus standi in this matter, and that on Mr Joubert's own version in the Cape High Court it became clear that it did not have any lease agreements in respect of the premises that they occupied.

11.

The affidavit of M. P. Joubert was annexed, and I do agree that it appears therefrom that the locus standi of Jenni Button (Pty) Ltd was challenged on grounds that   on the face of it were completely justified. A Replying Affidavit was drafted by the Fifth Respondent in his capacity  as a joint business rescue practitioner  for Jenni Button

(Pty)  Ltd. In essence he stated that it was the only entity that ever    took possession of, fitted out and stocked  the premises  and the only  entity that ever operated    from such premises.

12.

In my  view, a  bona fide dispute  of  fact had arisen in that  context and of course,  in mandament van spolie proceedings the onus is on the Applicant to prove that it   was in  possession  of  the  premises.  Despite  the  bona  fide disputes  of  fact  that were raised  in the proceedings  a quo, neither  party  asked  that the matter be referred  to evidence,  and nor did the Court a quo raise this point. It  must in    any event also be remembered   that   mandament   van   spolie  proceedings   cannot   be   used when contractual   rights   are  disputed   or   where  in  effect   a   specific   performance of contractual obligations is claimed.

See: First Rand Ltd T/A Rand Merchant Bank    v Scholtz N. O. and Others 2008 (2) SA 503 SCA at 510 B to D.

13.

It is  not necessary  to deal  with the contractual  dispute  between  the parties  as    it emanated from notes, discussions    and correspondence. It is in my view clear that a serious   and  bona  fide  doubt  existed  whether  Jenni  Button   ( Pty)   Ltd  had   the necessary  locus standi to launch the spoliation  proceedings,  and that it had  shown that it, as a legal entity, was the possessor of the premises in terms of    a contractual right granted to it. The Court a quo ought to have  approached  the dispute   between the  parties  on this  basis,  but  the  learned  Judge did not  do  so. In the  light  of the conflicting versions relating to what the actual terms of any agreement were  between the parties, and in fact who were the parties  to  any  such  agreement  relating to  the Woodlands shopping centre, it is my view that the Applicant in the Court a quo did not  prove on the  balance  of  probabilities  that  it  had  possession  of  the particular premises. The application ought therefore not to have been granted.

14.

It  is  also  common  cause  on  the  affidavits  before  us  that  another  entity  is now occupying the particular premises, and that in any event, possession thereof   cannot now be restored  to the Respondent  in the proceedings  before us.  A  Court will  not make an order  that cannot be enforced,  that will not have practical effect, and that does not refer to the rights and obligations of parties affected thereby.

See:  Cordiant  Trading CC v Daimler  Chrysler  Financial Services (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 205 SCA at 213 E - G.

15.

However,  on  the basis that  the  Applicant  in the  Court  a  quo did  not prove on  a balance of probabilities that it was in possession of the premises, the appeal must   in my view, succeed with costs.

The following order is therefore made:

1.    The appeal succeeds with costs, including cost of Senior Counsel;

2.    The  order  of  the  Court  a  quo  is  set  aside,   and  substituted  with  the following  order:  "The  application  is  dismissed  with  costs,  including the cost of Senior Counsel".

_____________________

JUDGE H.J FABRICIUS

JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

I Agree.

 

_____________________

JUDGE P. RABIE

JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

I Agree

________________________

JUDGE F. LEGODI

JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

19MAY2017

 

Case Number:                                 A878/2015

                                                              65643/2015

 

Counsel for Appellant:                    Adv A. C. Ferreira SC

                                                             Instructed by: Mark Efstratiou Inc

 

Counsel for Respondent:               Adv J.  Smit SC 

                                                             Instructed by: Deon Perold & Associates Inc.

Date of hearing:           17 May 2017

Date of judgment:        24 May  2017

---