Harold Schmidt t/a Prestige Home Innovations v Heita (CA 150 of 2005) [2006] NAHC 25 (28 June 2006)

Harold Schmidt t/a Prestige Home Innovations v Heita (CA 150 of 2005) [2006] NAHC 25 (28 June 2006)

The appellant was not proved responsible for the cracks; Clause 2.4 is enforceable as not contrary to public policy; the oral agreement for additional work was not proved; the respondent failed to prove damages for the counter-claim; thus, the appellant succeeds in Claim A, fails in Claim B, and the respondent's counter-claim fails.

Citation
[2006] NAHC 25
Parties
Appellant: Harold Schmidt t/a Prestige Home Innovations; Respondent: Mathias Ipinge Heita
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
28 June 2006
Case Number
CA 150 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Right of Retention, Oral Agreements, Damages, Counter Claims, Expert Evidence
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Building Contracts Right of Retention Oral Agreements Damages Counter Claims Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold Schmidt t/a Prestige Home Innovations

Appellant

Mathias Ipinge Heita

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was responsible for structural defects (cracks) in the respondent's property
  2. 2 Whether the appellant completed the contract work
  3. 3 Whether Clause 2.4 of the contract (renunciation of right of retention) is enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not proved responsible for the cracks; Clause 2.4 is enforceable as not contrary to public policy; the oral agreement for additional work was not proved; the respondent failed to prove damages for the counter-claim; thus, the appellant succeeds in Claim A, fails in Claim B, and the respondent's counter-claim fails.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Respondent to pay appellant N$16,000.00 within one month, with 20% per annum interest after expiration of the period.
  • No order as to costs.