Reference no: EM132313462

Party A leased a commercial property from Party B in order to run a branch of a large franchise pharmaceutics and lifestyle retail superstore. The lease ran without hitch for some years, but then the legal relationship between the paries soured. Party B brought an action to evict Party A from the property in the Magistrate's Court on the basis of Party B not meeting his rental obligations. The matter was opposed by Party A, who denied ever defaulting. Trial ensued; Party B succeeded and the eviction order was granted.

Party A has now launched action proceedings to sue Party B for damages he alleges to have suffered. The damages are largely consequential damages resulting from Party A not fulfilling franchise agreement with the franchisor as well as breaches of agreement with suppliers to the store and the pharmacy. Party A is of the view that these damages resulted from repudiation and cancellation of the lease and his consequent unlawful ejection from the leased premises.

Party A's attorney has recieved correspondence from the opposition indicating that they intend to oppose the action on the basis that the validity of the lease has already been decided by the court that granted the eviction order. Party A's attorney feels that this is rediculous and her client is entitled to his day in court to prove his damages.

On the phone she says to you: "these cases are not similar, they are different matters, with different goals. On one hand an eviction case and on the other an action for damages. Another court will reach another conclusion in support of our case.

Party As attorney needs an opinion on this poiny of procedure. Advise her as to the legal position.