Rossouw v Hanekom (741/2017) [2018] ZASCA 134 (28 September 2018)

Rossouw v Hanekom (741/2017) [2018] ZASCA 134 (28 September 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent, Mr Hanekom, had fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the roof to the appellant, Ms Rossouw, by stating it had been repaired when he knew the repairs were inadequate and the problem persisted. The respondent also failed to disclose that statutory approval for the alterations had not been obtained and that the sewage system and manhole had been unlawfully covered by a concrete floor. These misrepresentations and non-disclosures were material and induced the appellant to purchase the property. The court held that the voetstoots clause and the non-representation clause in the deed of sale did not bar a claim based on fraud. The...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 134
Parties
Appellant: Estelle Rossouw; Respondent: Jacobus Petrus Hanekom
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Case Number
741/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
Lewis, Tshiqi, Van der Merwe, Mothle, Nicholls
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Building Regulations, Latent Defects, Voetstoots Clause, Damages for Defective Property
Land and Property Delict Civil Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Building Regulations Latent Defects Voetstoots Clause +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estelle Rossouw

Appellant

Jacobus Petrus Hanekom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the roof to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to disclose the absence of statutory approval for alterations and the covering of the sewage system.
  3. 3 Whether the voetstoots clause and non-representation clause in the deed of sale bar a claim based on fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent, Mr Hanekom, had fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the roof to the appellant, Ms Rossouw, by stating it had been repaired when he knew the repairs were inadequate and the problem persisted. The respondent also failed to disclose that statutory approval for the alterations had not been obtained and that the sewage system and manhole had been unlawfully covered by a concrete floor. These misrepresentations and non-disclosures were material and induced the appellant to purchase the property. The court held that the voetstoots clause and the non-representation clause in the deed of sale did not bar a claim based on fraud. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with: 'The appeal is dismissed with costs.'