The Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) has scored a legal victory after the Western Cape High Court dismissed a bid by the owners of the seafood eatery Ocean Basket franchise at Cape Town International Airport to have ACSA’s multimillion-rand claim against them thrown out.
According to the court, the ruling affirms ACSA’s position in a long-running dispute over financial obligations linked to the restaurant’s airport operations.
Acting Judge Kantor delivered his judgment electronically on Monday, ruling that the dispute raised complex issues of contract interpretation that should be decided at trial rather than on technical grounds.
Dispute over expired lease
The case stems from a written lease agreement concluded in 2009 between ACSA and Abercrombie’s Coffee Shops CC, trading as Ocean Basket.
The lease was extended several times, ending in September 2017. ACSA claims that after the written lease expired, the restaurant continued trading under a tacit or implied lease. And that the defendants Alexander, Jennifer and Keith Abercrombie remained personally liable as sureties.
The state-owned entity is seeking more than R4.4-million in unpaid rent and other charges. In addition, R118,000 for restoring the premises. The Abercrombies argued that the suretyship they signed only applied to the original written lease and could not extend to any later, unwritten agreement.
Their legal team claimed that ACSA’s case therefore disclosed no cause of action against them and should be dismissed.
Judge Kantor disagreed. He found that the wording of the suretyship created enough uncertainty to require a full hearing.
Matter suited for a trial court
“Courts are reluctant to decide, on exception, questions of contract interpretation. While the suretyship appears to refer only to the original lease, its later clauses may suggest wider liability. That is a question best left to a trial court to decide with evidence,” the judge said.
The judge added that the difficulty in interpreting a contract does not automatically make it ambiguous. And that contracts are not rendered uncertain simply because parties disagree about their meaning.
He dismissed the exception. And he ruled that ACSA’s claim can reasonably stand on at least one interpretation of the documents. The defendants were ordered to pay ACSA’s legal costs jointly.
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
