Rowan Tree 1169 CC v Cowsta Belleggings (Pty) Ltd (3637/09) [2012] ZAECPEHC 24 (24 April 2012)

Rowan Tree 1169 CC v Cowsta Belleggings (Pty) Ltd (3637/09) [2012] ZAECPEHC 24 (24 April 2012)

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff was aware of the requirement for landlord consent at the time the lease agreement was concluded. The evidence showed that the plaintiff relied on the defendant's warranty of undisturbed possession and was entitled to do so. The defendant admitted the existence of the lease and the warranty but pleaded that the plaintiff's knowledge of the consent requirement precluded reliance on the warranty. The court held that the relevant time to assess the parties' state of mind is at contract conclusion, and the plaintiff was not aware of the consent requirement then. Therefore, the defendant is liable for...

Citation
[2012] ZAECPEHC 24
Parties
Plaintiff: Rowan Tree 1169 CC; Defendant: Cowsta Beleggings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2012
Case Number
3637/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability and Quantum Separated; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on liability; defendant liable for damages to be proved.
Judges
N Dambuza
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Warranty of Undisturbed Possession, Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Agreement Warranty of Undisturbed Possession Misrepresentation Unjust Enrichment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rowan Tree 1169 CC

Plaintiff

Cowsta Beleggings (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability and Quantum Separated; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant warranted undisturbed possession of the leased premises to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was aware of the requirement for landlord consent for the lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant misrepresented the plaintiff's entitlement to occupy and improve the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiff was aware of the requirement for landlord consent at the time the lease agreement was concluded. The evidence showed that the plaintiff relied on the defendant's warranty of undisturbed possession and was entitled to do so. The defendant admitted the existence of the lease and the warranty but pleaded that the plaintiff's knowledge of the consent requirement precluded reliance on the warranty. The court held that the relevant time to assess the parties' state of mind is at contract conclusion, and the plaintiff was not aware of the consent requirement then. Therefore, the defendant is liable for...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on liability; defendant liable for damages to be proved.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for such damages as the plaintiff may prove to have suffered as a result of its eviction from erf 446 Port Elizabeth.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit.