IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

MIA, AJ

Briefly, the background to this matter is that the respondent and the applicant entered into a lease agreement for premises for the period 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2012. It appears that during the course of 2010 there was an averment that the respondent had not been paying rentals herein and a demand was sent to the respondent. Following on the respondent's failure to make payment in terms of demand, a summons was issued out of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court.

At the time of commencing hearing this matter, I was informed that in order to succeed in this matter, the applicant would withdraw the matters pending in the Magistrate's Court. There was nothing placed before me indicating that such matters were in fact withdrawn. Having regard to the papers, there are a number of disputes that have been raised between the parties which disputes ought to have been addressed by way of action. On the papers, neither of the parties have indicated that they request that this matter be addressed by oral evidence.

Ordinarily, having regard to the founding and opposing affidavits, in the event that there are disputes, either the respondent may call for the deponents to be cross-examined in terms of Rule 6(5)(g) of the Uniform Rules of Court. This was not in fact done so in this matter. The Court is thus faced with

The respondent places an amount of R1 000,00 value to each parking bay and the respondent then also calculates its loss of 25 metres square use of the premises as a result of the lack of a storage facility for refuse, and avers that in view of that lack of 25 metres square, there is an amount of overpayment for rentals due and due to this that there was an overpayment for rental for the previous years, which places them in credit with the applicant herein.

MIA, AJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between:

and
GARY ISSACS						Respondent 					

I have heard counsel for the applicant and the respondent herein. I have also had the benefit of perusing the record herein.

I am not persuaded that there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.

The applicant's application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

MIA, AJ