africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2024] ZAGPJHC 909South Africa

Textton Property Fund Limited v Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated and Others (2024/098805) [2024] ZAGPJHC 909 (10 September 2024)

High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
10 September 2024
WRIGHT J, Respondent J, Wright J

Judgment

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 909 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Textton Property Fund Limited v Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated and Others (2024/098805) [2024] ZAGPJHC 909 (10 September 2024) Textton Property Fund Limited v Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated and Others (2024/098805) [2024] ZAGPJHC 909 (10 September 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_909.html sino date 10 September 2024 ###### SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2024/098805 1. Reportable: 2. Of interest to other judges 3. Revised: 10 September 2024 In the matter between: TEXTON PROPERTY FUND LIMITED Registration Number: 2005/019302/06 Applicant and MAXINE GUNZENHAUSER AND COMPANY INCORPORATED T/A MG LAW Registration Number: 2019/575014/21 1 st Respondent MAXINE GUNZENHAUSER Identity Number: 9[…] 2 nd Respondent 1THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIER(S) OF THE GROUND FLOOR, OFFICE GF-01 AND GF-02, BLOCK B, 1[…] K[…] STREET, SANDTON, 2031 3 rd Respondent JUDGMENT WRIGHT J 1. The applicant seeks urgently to evict the respondents from commercial premises. The applicant says that the lease has come to an end. 2. There is an allegation, somewhat vague, that the matter is urgent because the commercial property is valuable and an existing tenant could take over the premises now occupied by the first respondent. 3. The answering affidavit shows that the parties have been at loggerheads for some time. There are allegations that despite what was promised by the applicant there is insufficient security at the premises, leading to break-ins at the respondents’ premises. The is an allegation of fraudulent charging for electricity. 4. Urgency is denied. The answering affidavit says that the first respondent attempted to resolve problems amicably six months ago and that the alleged new tenant has no agreement with the applicant to hire the premises now occupied by the first respondent. The allegation here for the first respondent is that, contrary to what the applicant says, the proposed new tenant is not expanding into the first respondent’s premises but intends to move from its present premises to the first respondent’s premises. 5. In paragraph 23.3 of the heads of argument for the applicant it is submitted that the proposed new tenant, already in the building for some time, “ is interested in taking up the property.” 6. A belated attempt to show real urgency by relying on an email dated yesterday, 9 September 2024 by the proposed tenant, indicates nothing more than an interest, subject, at a minimum, to an inspection yet to happen. 7. In my view there is no shown urgency. ORDER 1. The matter is struck off the roll with the applicant to pay the first and second respondents’ costs, including those of an application by the first and second respondents to supplement their papers. 2. Costs are to be on Scale A. - GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD DELIVERED :10 September 2024 :10 September 2024 APPEARANCES: Applicant Instructed by Respondent Instructed by Adv S McTurk adv.shaun@mcturk.co.za 083 256 5561 Uys Matyeka Schwartz Attorneys geehan@umslaw.com 011 678 5280 Adv L Nigrini Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated t/a MG Law nardus@ngattorneys.co.za 082 444 9728 sino noindex make_database footer start

Similar Cases

T.N. and Another v MEC for Health and Social Development Gauteng Province (28157/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1307 (7 November 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1307High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Limited and Others v Selebogo Incorporated and Another (2022/001657) [2025] ZAGPJHC 491 (21 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 491High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Roadies Association v National Arts Councils of South Africa and Others (2023/076030) [2024] ZAGPJHC 936 (20 September 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 936High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd and Another v Thavalerie Travel CC and Another (2022/11927) [2025] ZAGPJHC 573 (10 June 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 573High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
T.M and P.M and Another (2025/243240) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1319 (19 December 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1319High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar

Discussion