{"issue_text":"Whether the cross-appeal was properly before the court given it was delivered out of time without an application for condonation.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The cross-appeal was delivered on 14 December 2022, outside the 7-day period from the notice of appeal dated 1 December 2022."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appellant was obliged to pay the disputed rental amount or was entitled to pay what it considered fair rent.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The appellant paid what it deemed fair rent while disputing the respondent's unilateral increase."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent had the right to unilaterally increase rentals despite the non-variation clause in the lease agreement.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Clause 23 required variations to be in writing and signed, but the rent increase was communicated verbally/unilaterally."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant leased commercial premises from the respondent for over 25 years. A dispute arose when the respondent unilaterally increased rent via a clause allowing rental reviews every three months. The appellant paid what it considered a fair rent, leading the respondent to sue for breach, cancellation, and ejectment. The trial court found for the respondent, which the appellant appealed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases