Home | Business | EMONATIC WEAR IN COURT FOR E561 000 ARREARS

EMONATIC WEAR IN COURT FOR E561 000 ARREARS

29/10/2018 02:51:00 BY MBONGISENI NDZIMANDZE

Font size:

MBABANE – The Bhunu Mall in Manzini has a zero tolerance on tenants who default on rent.
The first casualty was King Pie and now it is Emonatic Wear.

Emonatic Wear is one of the popular stores in Manzini known for selling men and women designer clothing and related accessories.
The Bhunu Mall has since instituted legal proceedings against Emonatic Wear where it is demanding payment for the sum of E561 820.25
In its particulars of claim, the plaintiff (Bhunu Mall Partnership) alleged that on or about November 1, 2015 it entered into a written lease agreement with the defendant.

agreement

During the signing of the agreement, the defendant was reportedly represented by its Managing Director Sifiso Maziya while the plaintiff was represented by its Centre Manager Musa Lee Dlamini.

According to the plaintiff, the material express and/or tactic terms of the agreement were as follows: The plaintiff as a lessor of the premises known as Shop U41, Bhunu, consisting of approximately 91 square metres, agreed to let the premises to the defendant.

It was allegedly agreed that the lease would subsist for a three- year period as reckoned from November 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018.

escalation

The monthly rental in respect of the premises was to be E30 705.17 with a compounded escalation rate annually of 10 per cent which as July 2018 was reportedly at E35 814.51.

In the particular of claim, the plaintiff alleged that it was further agreed that should the lessee commit a breach of the agreement, including, but not limited to failure to pay any amount due, the lessor shall be entitled to cancel the lease agreement forthwith and demand payment of any amount due under the lease, including a claim for damages.

“The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the payment of the sum of E561 820 .25 being the outstanding rentals which is now due, owing and payable. Notwithstanding demand, the defendant has failed and/or neglected to pay,” alleged the plaintiff.