Truffles War: Sandton restaurant squares up against Joburg Parks in court battle

Owners of Soul d’Afrique café, trading as Truffles on the Park, in Sandton’s Mushroom Farm Park in Johannesburg, have taken their fight to continue trading in the public park to the Johannesburg High Court, claiming harassment and intimidation.

The chic and elegant restaurant caters to patrons from all walks of life; from affluent residents of Sandton, the richest square mile in Africa, to the poor neighbouring Alexandra folks, who live within walking distance from the tranquil park.

ALSO READ: Top-spots-in-gauteng-to-visit-during-the-festive-season

In the first part of the two-pronged legal tussle, the restaurant lobbies the court for an urgent interdict stopping Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ) and Mushroom Park Activations (MPA) from interfering with its operations, harassing and intimidating patrons and staff.

The café, popularly known as Truffles, also wants an order to stop JCPZ and MPA from meddling with security arrangements at the park, interfering with electricity supply and back-up power to the restaurant.

This pending judgment on the main legal showdown, in which Truffles challenges JCPZ’s decision to deny them access to the agreement with MPA in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act to be reviewed and set aside.

Murky waters

Carmen Graham, Truffles’ managing director, explained in court papers how in March, JCPZ officials, apparently acting on complaints received by MPA, arrived at the restaurant with police officers demanding to see a lease agreement.

In her affidavit, she details how around 2013, Aerial Display (PTY) Ltd, represented by a Francis Chikasha, entered into a lease with JCPZ to operate a passenger balloon at the Mushroom Farm Park.

She states that it was agreed that as part of this lease, Aerial Display was to upgrade the park, including paved parking, fencing, guard house, irrigation, walkways, playground, lighting and public toilets.

Graham deposed that all these upgrades were paid for by Hyundai, through a marketing agreement between Aerial Display and Hyundai in terms of which Hyundai branded the passenger balloon with its branding.

But in 2017, she states, Aerial Display lost the marketing contract for the passenger balloon and was unable to maintain the park but managed to negotiate with JCPZ not to cancel the lease.

According to court papers, in May 2018 Aerial Display met with Soul d’Afrique to discuss jointly funding the building of a restaurant in the park and agreed to acquire a new company, Truffles, through which to fund, build and operate a new restaurant in the park.

The terms upon which the restaurant at the park will operate would be governed by a Service Level Agreement (SLA) entered into between Aerial Display and Truffels.

In accordance with the agreement, Truffles proceeded to finance and build the restaurant, with zero contribution from Aerial Display, and have operated the restaurant, to the knowledge of Johannesburg Property Company (JPC), since 2019.

Surprise

Graham said in August 2018, Aerial Display was liquidated but this key development was kept from Truffles, with owners only finding out about it four months later.

She said as a result of Aerial Display liquidation, since 2019 she has engaged JCPZ to determine whether Truffles could take Aerial Display’s place in the lease agreement to validate and secure its operations in the park.

“[JCPZ] advised that a formal deviation of the written lease agreement will be required. [JCPZ] committed and undertook to apply for the deviation of the written lease agreement, to include Truffles as a party and lessee in the lease agreement held between Johannesburg Property Company (JPC) and Aerial Display over the restaurants space and surrounding park property,” Graham said.

ALSO READ: Corruption-riddled-jpc-plagued-by-toxic-work-environment

She said in November 2020, Truffles made a renewed and final application to JCPZ for a deviation of the lease agreement over the park property, as had been suggested by a JCPZ but was still waiting.

Last year, the owners became aware that JCPZ had entered into an agreement with MPA, in which MPA had been given rights to hold events for financial compensation.

More surprises

Chikasha, whose company was liquidated, emerged as an employee of MPA and has been accused of unleashing a reign of harassment and intimidations.

Graham said they have been accused of running an illegal establishment, constantly threatened with eviction and seizure of their assets though they have invested R11 million, including rental payments, in the establishment.

“This despite being aware that [we] have been paying rent to the JPC and that discussions are ongoing to deviate [from] the lease agreement,” she said in court papers.

But JCPZ business development manager Bohlale Mohlathe said the application was misplaced as the relief sought “offends against the rule of law and the principle of legality, as the court was called upon to not only overlook the applicant’s unlawful conduct, but to promote such”.

She deposed that the application sought to stop the JCPZ from carrying out its functions, despite the latter constitutionally entrusted and empowered to make, administer and enforce by-laws for the effective administration and performance of its functions.

ALSO READ: Volunteers-stopped-wheelchair-repairs

“This of itself offends the principle of legality, not to mention Section 41 of the Constitution,” she charged.

In his replying affidavit, Chikasha said in September, Graham applied for a harassment order against him.

He said the application sought by Graham was therefore moot as the harassment order caters for the complaint.

“In terms of the order sought by [Truffles], I [Chikasha] as representative of  [Aerial Display] and all further representatives acting on my behalf are prohibited from making contacts and threats to [Graham], her team and patrons of the [Truffles] business,” Chikasha said.

He said they were also further prohibited from causing any personal, emotional and or economic harm.

The owners of the restaurant have refused to comment about the matter on record.

Judgment is expected to be delivered on the matter on Wednesday.