The Camps Bay Investment Trust (CBIT) evicted the Infuson Social Club after complaints from other tenants that they were selling cannabis from the premises in the upmarket Cape Town suburb. The landlords obtained a court order closing down the business on the grounds that Infusion had not come clean about its true business intentions for its coffee shop and restaurant.

The CBIT said it had been monitoring activities at the club following complaints by other tenants who had threatened to cancel their leases if a cannabis business was allowed to operate on the property. It presented its findings in court papers to the Cape Town magistrates court on 20 August 2024, and Judge Eduard Derek Wille agreed the tenants were in breach of their lease and passed the eviction notice.

Infusion has yet to comment on the eviction. The upmarket social club operates eight other venues, including three restaurants and according to its website has over 6 000 members, paying the monthly R30 membership fee for access to Infusion's selection of venues and bud bars.

The report below is from the Cape Times, published on 21 August 2024.

The “members-only” Infusion Social Club had entered into a lease agreement. They were subsequently evicted from a single shop in a portion of a commercial property owned by Camps Bay Investment Trust (CBIT) after complaints of the category of business.

The eviction came after other tenants raised concerns about the new business operation and threatened to cancel their lease agreements.

These grievances were cemented after “a group of concerned residents expressed their dismay that the CBIT was facilitating the sale of cannabis to minor children and stated that they would not support the tenants in the building should this position be allowed to continue”, court documents read.

The Infusion Social Club declined to comment.

According to the court documents, the shop they had operated from was previously a café where patrons could enjoy a coffee, freshly pressed juice or a smoothie. It had run into financial difficulty and could no longer operate.

There were initial attempts to resuscitate the business. The operation was financially distressed and a new lease agreement was signed with the social club owners with CBIT.

“At all material times, the CBIT understood that the social club would be conducting the same business as the café had undertaken previously.

A meeting with the representative of the social club followed (after CBIT received complaints), who conceded that they would be selling cannabis to the public from the premises.

“(They) also conceded that the food offered in the restaurant would be infused with cannabis products, including ‘tetrahydrocannabinol’, which is a scheduled substance with psychoactive properties. It was undisputed that the social club had failed to mention the cannabis-related trading activities to CBIT,” the judgment read.

CBIT terminated the lease agreement because of the impasse concerning the social club’s trading activities.

The termination followed the alleged non-disclosure and due to the business model not being a “symbiotic fit” for the premises.

CBIT kept a record of daily complaints received by tenants and residents, including disturbances emanating from the premises with smoke from cannabis consumption.

Further, the owners of the social club allowed smoking inside the premises, violating prevailing extant subordinate legislation and had embarked on branding alterations, which featured a cannabis leaf, to the premises without prior approval.

Judge Eduard Derek Wille said: “Notwithstanding the allegation that the occupancy of the premises had been settled and that the lease agreement had been validly terminated, the social club remained in occupation of the premises. The respondent materially misrepresented the business to be conducted by it and the business it intended to perform.

“CBIT, in turn, entered into the lease agreement on the basis that the respondent’s business was as disclosed in its business plan. I reasoned that CBIT would not have entered into the lease agreement had it known the true nature of the social club’s business, even if the social club subsequently did not conduct some aspects of that business from the premises,” said Judge Wille.

#