Herr v Innomet (Pty) Ltd Limited (394/2015) [2016] ZASCA 82 (31 May 2016)

Herr v Innomet (Pty) Ltd Limited (394/2015) [2016] ZASCA 82 (31 May 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the landlord, Innomet, failed in its obligation to provide the lessee, Herr, with peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the premises as required by the lease agreement. The planned major construction directly below the leased apartment rendered the premises uninhabitable, a fact conceded by the landlord's representative. The landlord did not respond to the lessee's notifications nor did it take steps to prevent the disturbance by invoking the body corporate's conduct rules. As a result, the lessee was justified in vacating the premises and entitled to repayment of the rental deposit. The landlord's counterclaim for contractual damages failed, as it...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 82
Parties
Appellant: Caine Jason Herr; Respondent: Innomet Projects (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2016
Case Number
394/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside and substituted with dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Judges
Ponnan, Majiedt, Saldulker, Swain, Zondi
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Reciprocity of Obligations, Peaceful and Undisturbed Occupation, Rental Deposit, Contractual Damages
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Reciprocity of Obligations Peaceful and Undisturbed Occupation Rental Deposit Contractual Damages

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caine Jason Herr

Appellant

Innomet Projects (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord breached its obligation to provide peaceful and undisturbed occupation under the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the lessee was entitled to early termination and repayment of the rental deposit due to the planned construction.
  3. 3 Whether the landlord was entitled to contractual damages for alleged repudiation and premature vacation of the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the landlord, Innomet, failed in its obligation to provide the lessee, Herr, with peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the premises as required by the lease agreement. The planned major construction directly below the leased apartment rendered the premises uninhabitable, a fact conceded by the landlord's representative. The landlord did not respond to the lessee's notifications nor did it take steps to prevent the disturbance by invoking the body corporate's conduct rules. As a result, the lessee was justified in vacating the premises and entitled to repayment of the rental deposit. The landlord's counterclaim for contractual damages failed, as it...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside and substituted with dismissal of the appeal with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and in its stead the following order is substituted: 'The appeal is dismissed with costs.'