Former SABC board deputy chairperson Mamodupi Mohlala has suffered financial loss after she rejected a R2.8-million offer from a potential buyer of her house and instead rented it out to two women who vacated the property prematurely.
Mohlala has now dragged the two women, Simangele Cynthia Sithole and Mbali Ngubane, to the Johannesburg High Court to obtain judgement against them and force them to pay the R2.8-million she lost as a result of the breach of the lease agreement.
In the court papers Sunday World has seen, Mohlala says Sithole, a Unisa employee, and Ngubane, an Eskom employee, occupied her Douglasdale property in the north of Johannesburg after signing a lease agreement on July 28 last year.
Mohlala said the lease agreement was a fixed-term contract for 12 months, commencing on September 1, 2023, and ending in August this year.
She said Sithole and Ngubane had agreed to pay a monthly rental fee of R16 500. A
well-known legal eagle,
Mohlala further stated that the lease agreement required Sithole and Ngubane to occupy the property for 12 months.
Sithole and Ngubane remained in occupation for only three months from October 2023 to November 2023 and absconded on December 23, 2023, Mohlala wrote.
Their failure to remain in occupation for 12 months, she said, amounted to a breach of the lease agreement and, as such, caused her to suffer damages.
The damages are loss of rental income for the remaining nine months of the lease agreement, she said in the court papers.
Mohlala further stated that when Sithole and Ngubane signed the lease agreement, the property was on the market for R2.8-million, but the two asked her to remove it from
the market.
“It was an expressed term of the contract that the plaintiff should remove the leased
property from the sale market for a period of twelve months whilst the defendants are in occupation and in compliance with the contract.
“The plaintiff removed the property from the sale market.
“As a result of the defendant’s breach, the plaintiff could no longer sell the property as it was removed from the market,” the application reads.
Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff has suffered damages amounting to R2800.00.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand) as a result of the breach by the defendants.
“The plaintiff has therefore suffered damages in the form of loss of income and/or loss of sales revenue in the amount of R2800.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand) due to the defendants’ breach of contract,” she stated.
The removal of the property from the market, she added, resulted in a loss of potential income and a potential buyer who had been willing to buy the
property for R2.8-million.
“The plaintiff therefore removed the property from the sale market and rejected all offers for the purchase of the property in compliance with the terms of the lease agreement.
“The plaintiff rejected an offer for the purchase of the property in the amount of R2800.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand) in compliance with the terms of the lease.
“The plaintiff has therefore suffered damages in the form of loss of income revenue in the amount of R2 800 000.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand),” read the papers.
“The plaintiff therefore claims damages from the defendants in the amount ofR2 800 000.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand).
“Wherefore, the plaintiff claims for judgment against the defendants, jointly and
severally the one paying the other to be absolved.”
In correctness and inconsistencies in the text:
1) R2.8-million
2) R2800.00.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand)
3) R2800.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand)
4) R2 800 000.00 (two million eight hundred thousand rand).
As a layman, I feel this a clear wasting of the Court’s time. Loss of income is the R16500 x 9 months as per lease however there should have been clauses that point to what would happen should there be a breach of agreement. The plaintiffs may argue a change of circumstances that made it impossible for them to pay rent leading to their decisions to vacate early. That early movement in other rent contracts would have meant the forfeiture of deposit.