1-1650821656124743657-.doc/JH IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO : 2020/18058 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES YES/NO (3) REVISED .......................................... SIGNATURE DATE ................................... In the matter between: PETERSEN, IZAK SMOLLY (ID No. 7303035317081) N.O. in his capacity as trustee of MERGENCE AFRICA PROPERTY INVESTMENT TRUST (IT No. 11263/2006) ASMAL, RIDWAAN (ID No. 7206215138088) N.O. in his capacity as trustee of MERGENCE AFRICA PROPERTY INVESTMENT TRUST (IT No. 11263/2006) First Plaintiff Second Plaintiff AZIZOLLAHOFF, BRIAN HILTON (ID No. 6012155048183) N.O. in his capacity as trustee of MERGENCE AFRICA PROPERTY INVESTMENT TRUST (IT No. 11263/2006) Third Plaintiff JUNKOON, JUJDEESHIN (ID No. 6308065162084) N.O. in his capacity as trustee of MERGENCE AFRICA PROPERTY INVESTMENT TRUST (IT No. 11263/2006) Fourth Plaintiff and BOCHUM FOODS (PTY) LIMITED t/a ROMAN’S PIZZA BOCHUM (Registration No. 2018/372299/07) First Defendant 1-1650821656124743657-.doc/JH 2 ELIZABETH RONELL UYS (ID No. 6912170002083) Second Defendant Case summary : summary judgment – amended Uniform Rule 32(2) – “reading in” approach in the case of Tumileng Trading CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Limited 2020 (6) SA 624 (WCC) to be followed in this Division – defence pleaded must raise a genuine issue for trial – Plaintiff’s supporting affidavit drafted within the context of the deponent’s knowledge and content of plea that has been delivered – pleaded defence must be bona fide - Defendants required to place facts before the court at summary judgment stage, if a genuine defence is being advanced and cannot complain if the court is left in a position in which it is unable to find a reasonable basis to find that such Defendants have a bona fide defence – summary judgment granted. Jurisdiction – Section 21 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – jurisdiction over all causes arising within this Division’s area of jurisdiction – cause of action originated within the court’s area of jurisdiction – choice of domicilium citandi et executandi in itself not sufficient to establish jurisdiction – court has jurisdiction as lease agreement was concluded (offer accepted) in its jurisdiction, suretyship was concluded (offer was accepted) in its jurisdiction and payment (performance) takes place in an area over which this Division has concurrent jurisdiction – principle of causa continentia applicable. JUDGMENT FRANCK AJ: [1] The Plaintiffs applied for summary judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved in respect of claim 1, as prayed for in the Particulars of Claim for the following relief: 1-1650821656124743657-.doc/JH 3 [2] [1.1] Payment of the amount of R91 375,60; [1.2] Interest on the above at the prevailing prime rate as from time to time (as at December 2020, 7.25% per annum) plus 2% per annum, compounded monthly, a tempore morae from date of service of summons to date of final payment; [1.3] Ejectment of the First Defendant or anyone claiming occupation through the First Defendant from the commercial leased premises situated at Shop 101, Ground Floor, Bochum Plaza, corner Dendron & Blouberg Roads, Bochum Extension 3, Limpopo (measuring approximately 60 square metres); [1.4] Costs of suit on the scale as between attorney and client together with disbursements so incurred and such collection commission as the Plaintiffs are obliged to pay its attorneys; [1.5] Further and/or alternative relief. It is common cause between the parties that, the First Defendant no longer occupies the commercial leased premises and as such, the Plaintiffs do not persist in seeking an order in terms of prayer 3 relating to ejectment. [3] Plaintiffs issued summons against the Defendants on 23 July 2020. Their cause of action is based on a written agreement of lease entered into between the Plaintiffs and First Defendant on 8 October 2018 at Rosebank, Gauteng. The claim against the Second Defendant is based on a deed of suretyship. In their Particulars of Claim, the 1-1650821656124743657-.doc/JH 4 Plaintiffs plead that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this action as the whole cause of action arose within the jurisdictional area of this court. [4] The Plaintiffs claim that the First Defendant absconded from the commercial leased