Castelyn v Sellick and Another (AR767/2010) [2016] ZAKZPHC 108 (13 December 2016)

Castelyn v Sellick and Another (AR767/2010) [2016] ZAKZPHC 108 (13 December 2016)

The court found that the appellant was not induced to enter into the sale agreement by any actionable misrepresentation or non-disclosure. Prior to the amended agreement, the appellant was informed that a portion of the property included a public road, and she proceeded with the purchase with knowledge of this fact. The agreement contained clauses excluding reliance on prior representations and placing the risk of the property's extent and nature on the purchaser. The appellant failed to establish grounds to resile from the agreement, and her claim for repayment of the deposit was rightly dismissed. Regarding the first respondent's counterclaim, the court held that only the security costs...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZPHC 108
Parties
Appellant: Verna Castelyn; Respondent: Janice Elizabeth Sellick; Respondent: J D Vedan and Company
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2016
Case Number
AR767/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Regional Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of court a quo confirmed in convention; judgment in reconvention amended.
Judges
Koen, Chetty
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Contractual Damages, Forfeiture of Deposit, Sale of Immovable Property, Non Disclosure, Costs Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Contractual Damages Forfeiture of Deposit Sale of Immovable Property Non Disclosure Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Verna Castelyn

Appellant

Janice Elizabeth Sellick

Respondent

J D Vedan and Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Regional Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to resile from the sale agreement on the basis of misrepresentation or lack of consensus.
  2. 2 Whether any actionable misrepresentation or non-disclosure occurred inducing the agreement.
  3. 3 What damages, if any, were recoverable by the first respondent upon cancellation of the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was not induced to enter into the sale agreement by any actionable misrepresentation or non-disclosure. Prior to the amended agreement, the appellant was informed that a portion of the property included a public road, and she proceeded with the purchase with knowledge of this fact. The agreement contained clauses excluding reliance on prior representations and placing the risk of the property's extent and nature on the purchaser. The appellant failed to establish grounds to resile from the agreement, and her claim for repayment of the deposit was rightly dismissed. Regarding the first respondent's counterclaim, the court held that only the security costs...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of court a quo confirmed in convention; judgment in reconvention amended.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is directed to pay two thirds of the first respondent’s costs of the appeal on the attorney and own client scale.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed and the first respondent is directed to pay the appellant’s costs of the cross-appeal on the attorney and own client scale.