Minister of Community Development and Another v Koch (230/1989) [1991] ZASCA 83; 1991 (3) SA 751 (AD); (30 May 1991)

Minister of Community Development and Another v Koch (230/1989) [1991] ZASCA 83; 1991 (3) SA 751 (AD); (30 May 1991)

The court found that the respondent's right to reasonable access to his business premises was materially impeded throughout the construction period due to the negligent conduct of the contractor and the failure of the consulting engineers to supervise the works effectively. The first appellant, as the principal, was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 83
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Community Development; Appellant: Manthe & Partners Incorporated; Respondent: Herman Richard Koch
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1991
Case Number
230/1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division, Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Joubert, Vivier, Milne, Eksteen, Krieger
Legal Topics
Wrongful Interference With Access, Aquilian Liability, Vicarious Liability, Assessment of Damages, Urban Renewal Scheme, Independent Contractor Liability
Land and Property Delict Civil Procedure Wrongful Interference With Access Aquilian Liability Vicarious Liability Assessment of Damages Urban Renewal Scheme +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Minister of Community Development

Appellant

Manthe & Partners Incorporated

Appellant

Herman Richard Koch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division, Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are liable for damages resulting from wrongful interference with access to the respondent's business premises during urban renewal construction.
  2. 2 Whether the first appellant, having engaged an independent contractor and consulting engineers, can be held vicariously liable for the contractor's negligence.
  3. 3 How damages for loss of business due to impaired access should be assessed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's right to reasonable access to his business premises was materially impeded throughout the construction period due to the negligent conduct of the contractor and the failure of the consulting engineers to supervise the works effectively. The first appellant, as the principal, was held liable for damages sustained from September 1983 onwards, as he failed to act upon the respondent's complaint and did not take reasonable steps to remedy the situation. The second appellant was found liable for the entire period due to its failure to ensure reasonable access was maintained. The assessment of damages was based on the respondent's financial records, with a...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The orders of the trial court regarding damages and costs in favour of the respondent are confirmed.