Screen v Havemann (A719/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 949 (14 November 2014)

Screen v Havemann (A719/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 949 (14 November 2014)

The court held that the appellant was entitled to repayment of R75,000 paid under the void agreement, as this was common cause and previously tendered by the respondent. However, the appellant was precluded from claiming compensation for improvements because the structures were erected without approved building plans, in contravention of statutory requirements, and thus constituted illegal acts. The court refused to condone or enforce illegality, finding that neither the Alienation of Land Act nor the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act allows compensation for unlawful improvements. The respondent's claims for compensation for occupation and demolition costs also...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 949
Parties
Appellant: Michael Rodney Wallace Screen; Respondent: Louis John Havemann
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2014
Case Number
A719/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
The appeal and counter-appeal are dismissed.
Judges
Swartz, Webster, Semenya
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Unjust Enrichment, Building Regulations, Compensation for Improvements, Absolution From Instance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Unjust Enrichment Building Regulations Compensation for Improvements Absolution From Instance

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Rodney Wallace Screen

Appellant

Louis John Havemann

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for improvements made to the respondent's property under a void agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of approved building plans precludes a claim for compensation for improvements under section 28 of the Alienation of Land Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to compensation for occupation and demolition costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant was entitled to repayment of R75,000 paid under the void agreement, as this was common cause and previously tendered by the respondent. However, the appellant was precluded from claiming compensation for improvements because the structures were erected without approved building plans, in contravention of statutory requirements, and thus constituted illegal acts. The court refused to condone or enforce illegality, finding that neither the Alienation of Land Act nor the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act allows compensation for unlawful improvements. The respondent's claims for compensation for occupation and demolition costs also...

Court Disposition

The appeal and counter-appeal are dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal and counter-appeal are dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay his own costs.