{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in finding that the lease agreement entitled the respondent to cancel the lease after the breach complained of had been rectified","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Payment of outstanding rentals on 8 June 2009, acceptance of payment by respondent"}
{"issue_text":"Whether clause 18(c) of the agreement entitled the respondent to accept rectification and still proceed to cancel the agreement","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Clause 18 of lease agreement, acceptance of payment, subsequent cancellation"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondent's lawyers wrote to the appellant indicating a breach of the lease agreement regarding non-payment of rentals since January 2009, demanding payment within 14 days. The appellant made payment on 8 June 2009, within the stipulated time. Despite this rectification, the respondent proceeded to cancel the lease agreement, which the magistrate upheld.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases