Hermprop BK v Hiross Sout Africa (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander (192/89) [1991] ZASCA 130 (27 September 1991)

Hermprop BK v Hiross Sout Africa (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander (192/89) [1991] ZASCA 130 (27 September 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were justified in cancelling the lease agreements due to the appellant's failure to repair the storm-damaged roof within a reasonable time. The court found that the period allowed in the notice to repair was reasonable, considering the substantial inconvenience suffered by the respondents and the elapsed time since the damage occurred. The appellant's delays, including negotiations with insurers and suppliers, did not excuse its failure to act promptly. The court further held that the obligation to provide a guarantee by the first respondent was not a reciprocal condition affecting the right to place the appellant in mora. Accordingly,...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 130
Parties
Appellant: Hermprop BK; Respondent: Hiross South Africa (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Roadmaster Tyre Service (Edms) Bpk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 1991
Case Number
192/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Consolidated Actions in the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Botha, Goldstone, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Lease Cancellation, Positive Malperformance, Mora Debitoris, Reasonable Time for Performance, Warranty of Habitable Premises
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Cancellation Positive Malperformance Mora Debitoris Reasonable Time for Performance Warranty of Habitable Premises

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hermprop BK

Appellant

Hiross South Africa (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Roadmaster Tyre Service (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Consolidated Actions in the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to cancel the lease agreements due to the appellant's failure to repair storm damage to the premises within a reasonable time.
  2. 2 Whether the period allowed in the notice to repair constituted a reasonable time for performance.
  3. 3 Whether the obligation to provide a guarantee by the first respondent was a reciprocal obligation affecting the right to place the appellant in mora.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were justified in cancelling the lease agreements due to the appellant's failure to repair the storm-damaged roof within a reasonable time. The court found that the period allowed in the notice to repair was reasonable, considering the substantial inconvenience suffered by the respondents and the elapsed time since the damage occurred. The appellant's delays, including negotiations with insurers and suppliers, did not excuse its failure to act promptly. The court further held that the obligation to provide a guarantee by the first respondent was not a reciprocal condition affecting the right to place the appellant in mora. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two advocates.