Keyrouz v Whitehorn (A5016/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 166 (25 May 2016)

Keyrouz v Whitehorn (A5016/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 166 (25 May 2016)

The court held that section 10(1) of the Housing Consumer’s Protection Act does not preclude a housing consumer from claiming damages for breach of contract against a home builder who was not registered. The underlying building contract remains valid, and the Act’s purpose is to protect consumers, not to deprive them of remedies. The arbitrator was not precluded from making an award of damages in favour of the respondent, and there were no grounds for setting aside the award under the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 166
Parties
Appellant: Edward Martin Keyrouz; Respondent: Robin Whitehorn
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Case Number
A5016/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application to Review Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten, P Boruchowitz, HJ De Vos
Legal Topics
Housing Consumers Protection Act, Arbitration Award Review, Breach of Contract, Damages
Land and Property Civil Procedure Housing Consumers Protection Act Arbitration Award Review Breach of Contract 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Martin Keyrouz

Appellant

Robin Whitehorn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application to Review Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 10(1)(b) of the Housing Consumer’s Protection Act 95 of 1998 precludes an arbitrator from awarding damages to a housing consumer where the home builder was not registered.
  2. 2 Whether non-registration of the home builder constitutes a ground for setting aside the arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 10(1) of the Housing Consumer’s Protection Act does not preclude a housing consumer from claiming damages for breach of contract against a home builder who was not registered. The underlying building contract remains valid, and the Act’s purpose is to protect consumers, not to deprive them of remedies. The arbitrator was not precluded from making an award of damages in favour of the respondent, and there were no grounds for setting aside the award under the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.