Burke v Schreuder (CA&R 31/2008) [2009] ZANCHC 45 (4 September 2009)

Burke v Schreuder (CA&R 31/2008) [2009] ZANCHC 45 (4 September 2009)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding both the alleged breach of the lease and the quantum of damages. The evidence did not establish that the respondent failed to give proper notice or that he neglected his maintenance obligations under the lease. The trial court's findings on credibility and fact were supported by the probabilities and the evidence, including the respondent's improvements to the property and the lack of reliable evidence on the property's condition at the start and end of the lease. The appellant also failed to prove locus standi, as the property belonged to a company and no evidence of assignment or sublease...

Citation
[2009] ZANCHC 45
Parties
Appellant: Johan Burke; Respondent: Hermias Cornelis Schreuder
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2009
Case Number
CA&R 31/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Majiedt R, Olivier R
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Burden of Proof, Damages Assessment, Locus Standi, Costs Award, Contract Extension
Land and Property Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Burden of Proof Damages Assessment Locus Standi Costs Award +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Burke

Appellant

Hermias Cornelis Schreuder

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved entitlement to damages for alleged breach of lease by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to damages for failure to give notice under the lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant proved the respondent failed to maintain the leased property as required by contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding both the alleged breach of the lease and the quantum of damages. The evidence did not establish that the respondent failed to give proper notice or that he neglected his maintenance obligations under the lease. The trial court's findings on credibility and fact were supported by the probabilities and the evidence, including the respondent's improvements to the property and the lack of reliable evidence on the property's condition at the start and end of the lease. The appellant also failed to prove locus standi, as the property belonged to a company and no evidence of assignment or sublease...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.