Lease woes continues

Pursuant to an article published in the Midrand Reporter, Lease agreement turns ugly, Week ending 9 December 2016, Pastor Given Pitsi Duba has now provided our publication with new information in an open letter from Amina Bibi Rajah of Amina Rahman Attorneys, dated 9 December 2016.

The Midrand Reporter welcomes this opportunity to share with our readers a different (albeit long-awaited) version of the issues reported on in our above-mentioned article.

The letter confirms in paragraphs 4 and 5 that a lease agreement has been entered into between Duba, trading as Face of Yaweh International Family Fellowship, and the landlord, Edward (Eddie) Nkumise and that a dispute has arisen between the parties.

“Upon the culmination of a lease agreement our client learnt inter alia that a major portion of the property which forms the subject matter of the lease entered into with our client, is claimed by a third party alleging a tacit and or alternatively implied right preventing our client from utilising a major portion of the property. Despite the aforesaid our client paid rentals in full for the period,” the letter states.

“The aforesaid dispute is substantial and constitutes a deprivation of our client’s rights in accordance with the lease agreement entered into. Eddie Nkumise’s failure to rectify the situation and to provide our client with occupation of the property as contemplated in the lease agreement resulted in [the] dispute our client is subjected to today.”

The letter states in paragraph 6, “The allegation of ‘building against Nkumises will’ is unfounded. Having regard to the fact that the dispute arises out of a lease agreement, it was only appropriate in the circumstances to have sight of same prior to having published unfounded and inaccurate information that is totally devoid of the truth. Our client has invested a substantial amount of monies in constructing an additional building on the property with the landlord’s consent.”

It is furthermore indicated that due to the ‘landlord’s [Nkumise] failure to co-operate’ with Duba, a ‘hostile atmosphere’ resulted and ‘the only remedy available… was to seek the intervention of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg on more than two occasions’. Copies of the court orders have been made available to the paper – see comments below.

According to paragraph 8 of the letter, the prevailing situation is that Nkumise is interdicted from interfering directly or indirectly with Duba’s ‘religious activities and its congregation at the property’.

The letter continues that Nkumise’s allegations made in the newspaper ‘is yet another violation of the court order interdicting him from interfering with our client, which constitutes a criminal offence’.

Paragraph 8 concludes, “May we point out that Nkumise is already in violation of the court order and has total disregard of any court orders. He has dumped rubble and sand around the entire premises occupied by our client restricting peaceful occupation of the property by our client and its members.”

NKUMISE’S COMMENTS

For the sake of convenience, Nkumise’s comments are summarised in bullet form and only address the issues raised above.

• The lease commenced on 1 April 2016 and was to expire end April 2040.
• The initial monthly rental was set at R25 000.
• Duba only made payment in respect of the rent until August 2016 (which was paid late) and not for the ‘full period’ as claimed.
• Two letters of demand were sent by Nkumise’s attorneys, Thembelihle Dlamini Attorneys, to Duba’s attorneys on 8 October and 12 October 2016 respectively, claiming rent for September and late payment interest for August. These demands have been ignored and, to date, no monies have been paid since August.
• In terms of clauses 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 of the lease agreement, the tenant, Duba, was obliged to inspect the premises prior to occupation and to notify the landlord, Nkumise, of any defects within 14 days.
• In terms of clause 13.5 of the lease agreement, Nkumise gave no warranty and made no representations in regard to the premises nor did he warrant that the premises would be fit for any purpose and Duba acknowledged having inspected the premises prior to taking occupation.
• In terms of the interdict mentioned above, the High Court ordered that Nkumise be ‘allowed to remain on the property to attend to his chickens, dogs, garden and septic tank’.
• Nkumise was living on the property at the time when the lease agreement was entered into, doing the aforementioned, and Duba did not complain, at the time, that his presence would be ‘depriving her of a major portion of the property or any of her rights’ – but now she maintains that this is the reason for the dispute.
• The same applies to the so-called ‘third party’. Duba could have complained at the time and cancelled the lease on those grounds but instead, she gave tacit, alternatively implied consent, by opting to pay the rentals, allegedly for the ‘full period’.
• Nkumise says he is only aware of the court order in respect of the electricity supply, granted on 28 October 2016.
• The interdict matter was postponed on 4 November to 18 November 2016, as he had no legal counsel. When he arrived at court on the day with counsel, his name was not on the roll and, upon enquiry from the judge’s chambers, Duba’s attorneys conveyed that they were not coming to court. Consequently, the matter was not heard and no final interdict was granted.
• Nkumise denies that he has violated the court order and said, “I am sure I have the right to look after my property to prevent storms [damage] – and to make it clear, it’s not dumping, it’s backfilling my land.”
• While clause 6.9 makes provision for the tenant to ‘erect any buildings on the land as it suits them without the landlord’s interference’, Duba ‘commenced erection of a building (church) without permission or approval from the Council as per Notice No 97433 issued on 23 May 2016 by Building Control of the Department of Development, Planning, Transportation and Environment, City of Joburg. Nkumise, as the owner of the property, was ordered to stop building immediately.
• The claims of other, previous landlords in the area, pertaining to a youth and orphan shelter/ orphanage mentioned in the same article, have not been addressed at all, nor has Duba offered her versions to counter these allegations. The letter merely states, “These allegations will be appropriately challenged in another forum.”
• The letter also states at the outset, ‘… for the record the allegations contained [in the article] are far removed from the facts and are emphatically denied by our client’ and that the ‘article was intended to damage our client’s good name and reputation’.
• We state for the record that, as a community newspaper, Midrand Reporter strives to report on matters that are in the interest of the community we serve, and particularly where vulnerable groups such as youths and orphans are concerned.
• We also do not interfere with churches or similar organisations, except where members of the community come forward with issues that affect other members in the community and which are in the interest of the community.

We further state for the record that Midrand Reporter has at all material times:

• Made Duba aware of all the allegations against her
• Made Duba aware of the fact that we intend publishing an article containing these allegations
•  Afforded Duba the opportunity and ample time to comment and give her side of the story to eliminate any possible misconceptions. (We held the article back to include the outcome of the court hearing on 18 November 2016.)

We also state for the record that:

•  The only response we could elicit from Duba was that ‘… the matter was sub judice and she does not want to comment’, but revealed that she ‘suspects Nkumise has some sort of personal vendetta against her’.
• Duba has not, at any stage, indicated that she would object to the publishing of an article containing these allegations.
• Duba has also not, at any stage, indicated that she would ask her attorney to intervene to prevent Midrand Reporter from publishing the said article.
•  Midrand Reporter has not, at any stage, intended to damage the ‘good name and reputation’ of any person mentioned in the article.

It is regrettable that Duba has, only after the publication of said article, opted to consult with her attorney to provide Midrand Reporter with a different version of the story about matters which allegedly were ‘sub judice’.

Tweet @MidrandReporter