Greenvest 101 (Pty) Ltd v Trident Steel (Pty) Ltd (494/06) [2009] ZAECGHC 46 (30 July 2009)

Greenvest 101 (Pty) Ltd v Trident Steel (Pty) Ltd (494/06) [2009] ZAECGHC 46 (30 July 2009)

The court found that the defendant, through its director Behr, misrepresented to the plaintiff that no lease existed over the property, and this misrepresentation was material and fraudulent. The evidence established that neither the plaintiff nor its agent Jack had knowledge of the oral lease prior to 19 February 2003, and the probabilities favoured the plaintiff's version. The defendant's special plea of prescription failed, as the plaintiff only acquired knowledge of the lease on 19 February 2003. The misrepresentation induced the plaintiff to purchase the property at a price calculated on the assumption of vacant occupation and the ability to negotiate a favourable lease. The...

Citation
[2009] ZAECGHC 46
Parties
Plaintiff: Greenvest 101 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Trident Steel (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2009
Case Number
494/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on liability; defendant liable for damages to be proved.
Judges
Plasket
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Commercial Property Sale, Lease Disclosure, Prescription Act, Damages Liability, Materiality of Misrepresentation
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Delict Fraudulent Misrepresentation Commercial Property Sale Lease Disclosure Prescription Act Damages Liability +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenvest 101 (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Trident Steel (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant fraudulently or negligently misrepresented the existence of a lease over the property to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the lease prior to 19 February 2003, impacting prescription of the claim.
  3. 3 Whether the agent's knowledge of the lease could be imputed to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, through its director Behr, misrepresented to the plaintiff that no lease existed over the property, and this misrepresentation was material and fraudulent. The evidence established that neither the plaintiff nor its agent Jack had knowledge of the oral lease prior to 19 February 2003, and the probabilities favoured the plaintiff's version. The defendant's special plea of prescription failed, as the plaintiff only acquired knowledge of the lease on 19 February 2003. The misrepresentation induced the plaintiff to purchase the property at a price calculated on the assumption of vacant occupation and the ability to negotiate a favourable lease. The...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on liability; defendant liable for damages to be proved.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for such damages as it may prove in due course.
  • The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of two counsel.