Local airline company, CemAir has been ordered by the South Gauteng High Court to return equipment it had leased from Swissport South Africa within five days.
Local airline company, CemAir has been ordered by the South Gauteng High Court to return equipment it had leased from Swissport South Africa within five days.
According to court documents, CemAir kept the equipment in their possession without having signed an extension of an existing contract.
Swissport had furnished CemAir with aviation ground handling related apparatus and services for approximately seven years prior to April 2023.
On March 28, 2023, after the previous agreements had come to an end, the chief executive officer of the local airline requested a month-to-month lease for the equipment in which both parties executed a written Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) which took effect on April 1 last year.
However, the ELA was not extended and lapsed over time. On April 30, 2023, the airline company failed to return the leased equipment in its possession to its owners.
“On May 1, 2023, Swissport South Africa did not request the equipment’s return. Rather, on May 15, 2023, CemAir enquired about the potential sale of the equipment by Swissport South Africa to CemAir,” the judgment read.
The Swiss-based company, specialising in airport ground handling, lounge hospitality, and cargo services, requested a list of equipment CemAir was considering purchasing. CemAir was then informed of outstanding debts, including R569 010.19 prior to the ELA, and was barred from leasing further equipment.
“A portion of the letter relating to the ELA, however, was disclosed in the founding affidavit.
“In this letter the (airline) expressed dissatisfaction with (Swissport’s) request for payment in terms of the ELA, as not all of the equipment had been delivered to CemAir. Additionally, they complained that some of the equipment was outdated and required repairs,” the judgment read.
“(The letter) subsequently stated: ‘We had no alternative but to proceed and contract with another ground handling company to assist where we are unable to operate due to the state of your client’s equipment... We have incurred costs to repair two buses in the meantime as nothing was operable’.
“Thus, it was revealed that the reason for retaining possession of the applicant’s equipment was that the respondent had a lien or right to retain the equipment in their possession in lieu of the recovery of unspecified contractual damages and unconfirmed repairs to the equipment,” the judgment read.
Judge Leonie Windell further ordered that if CemAir failed to return the equipment, the Sheriff of the Court is authorised to attach and remove the equipment and deliver it to Swissport at CemAir’s cost.
Enquiries to CemAir were not answered by deadline. A Swissport spokesperson said: “We acknowledge the judgment and have received its full contents. We are currently studying the details to understand its implications fully.
Further comments will be provided once our review is complete.”
Cape Times