A commercial eviction dispute in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg (Case No. 2025-171301) between Airpark Property Development (Pty) Ltd and Altitude Adjustment Aviation CC regarding premises at Eagles Creek Aviation Estate.
Applicant seeks commercial eviction from Plot 113 Knopjeslaagte 385, Tshwane, within Eagles Creek Aviation Estate. The claim is predicated upon ownership as reflected in Title Deed 160197/07.
Applicant claims R18,936,561.15 in outstanding payments, plus ancillary relief. The claim stems from alleged breach of lease obligations and non-payment of substantial monies owed.
A signed lease agreement dated 27 August 2014 was concluded between the parties, reflected as a Notarial Deed of Lease for Hangar M40 measuring 150 m². The document contains manuscript changes and alterations inserted by Respondent's member Richard Stubbs and signed/initialed by both Stubbs and Applicant's director Greyvensteyn.
Notarial Deed of Lease prepared by Applicant for 99-year term
Changes inserted by Stubbs and initialed by both parties
Despite being a Notarial Deed, lease was never registered in Deeds Office
Respondent given beneficial occupation from 2014 despite non-registration
The lease agreement contains several critical manuscript insertions and amendments that form the basis of the current dispute. These changes were made by Respondent and initialed by both parties.
Lessee inserted as "AAA CC T/A Sable Aircraft" with Richard Stubbs' name added. AAA is Altitude Adjustment Aviation per Windeed search.
Addresses and contact numbers inserted, initialed at bottom of page rather than alongside insertions.
Amount of R0.00 was inserted into this clause.
Entire clause section was deleted from the agreement.
Amount of R6.30 deleted and substituted with R530.00, initialed by both parties. This forms the central dispute.
Despite being reflected as a Notarial Deed of Lease valid for 99 years from date of registration, the lease was never registered in any Deeds Office. Registration was to occur after payment of registration costs, which were never paid.
However, despite non-registration, Respondent was afforded occupation and possession, enjoying beneficial occupation from conclusion of the agreement in 2014.
A notarial lease, even if not registered, remains a contract with obligations imposed on both parties. Failure to register creates valid personal rights between parties but lacks real right status and enhanced protection of registration.
"Failure to register a long-term lease is valid as personal rights between the parties but does not require real right status and lacks the enhanced protection of registration, which will not bind successive owners."
Applicant contends that Respondent has breached the lease terms by failing to pay substantial monies owed. Despite demand, such monies remain owing, and Respondent has been in breach for a period exceeding 2 months. In these circumstances, Applicant has cancelled the agreement and claimed eviction of Respondent.
First demand notice sent to Respondent
Second demand notice issued
Third demand notice sent
Request for proof of payment - no response received
Clause 14 of the lease agreement deals with breach by Respondent and affords Applicant the right to take whatever steps it is entitled to take. Notice was afforded to Respondent through multiple communications, and they chose not to effect payment or prove same.
In answer, Respondent contended that Applicant breached the agreement by not registering it at the Deeds Office, and that a landlord cannot demand performance under these circumstances, including the obligation to pay levies.
Respondent admits the lease agreement but contends the levy rate agreed was R5.30 per m² as opposed to R530 per m², referring to a rectification counterclaim which was not launched.
Despite admitting he made the manuscript insertions, Stubbs contends he made an error regarding the placement of the decimal point. This version contradicts the version contended by Moore regarding the quality of the photocopied version.
Stubbs admits receipt of the 11 September 2025 mail but elected not to respond, contending he was not obliged to furnish Applicant with information or documents requested.
Per square meter levy amount allegedly agreed
Per square meter levy amount in written agreement
Total area of Hangar M40 under lease
The Applicant relies on fundamental legal principles regarding disputes of fact, burden of proof, and adverse inferences from silence. These principles are critical to resolving the case.
Per Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (2008): "A real, genuine and bona fide dispute of fact can exist only where the court is satisfied that the party who purports to raise the dispute has in his affidavit seriously and unambiguously addressed the fact said to be disputed."
It is a fundamental principle that he who alleges must prove. In the context of payment, the onus rests on the debtor/Respondent (Pillay v Krishna 1946 AD 946).
Per McWilliams v First Consolidated Holdings (1982): Silence and inaction after receipt of a letter, where firm repudiation would be expected, justifies an adverse inference supporting the claim.
Stubbs on behalf of Respondent has attempted to raise various disputes without merit and in circumstances where there was an obligation to prove payment, which was not done. Payment to the NPC/Investors Committee and Tshwane clearly fall within Respondent's knowledge.
Respondent refers to a rectification counterclaim which was not launched. For rectification to be applicable, there must be a common intention of the parties, and Respondent must prove specific factors.
An agreement must have been concluded between the parties and reduced to writing
The written document does not reflect the true common continuing intention of the parties as it existed when reduced to writing
An intention by both parties to reduce the agreement to writing must be established
A mistake in drafting the document, which could result from intentional act or bona fide common error
The actual wording of the true agreement must be proven
Per Propfokus 49 P/L v Wenhandel 4 P/L [2007] SCA 15, these five factors must be proven. Not only have such allegations not been pleaded, but Respondent's contentions for rectification are specifically denied. If there was no meeting of minds, the lease agreement may be void for vagueness, and Respondent would have no entitlement to remain in occupation.
Respondent denies monies are owed and avers that even if owed, claims for monies in excess of 3 years have prescribed under the Prescription Act. However, Respondent relies upon a certificate of "good standing" from Eagles Creek Flying Club NPC (where Stubbs is director and chairman) with no proof of payment submitted.
At paragraph 35, Stubbs advises the matter is lis pendens. Although there are certain overlaps between relief sought in that matter and this one, the current Respondent is not party to those proceedings.
The affidavit was commissioned before 2 commissioners: Clifford Muyambi and Wynand du Plessis. It is unclear who signed the affidavit. The affidavit could not have been commissioned by both parties, and they could not both have administered the oath.
Commercial Eviction Case: Airpark Property Development v Altitude Adjustment Aviation