Van Rooyen v Brown and Another (A3104/2015) [2018] ZAGPJHC 453 (28 June 2018)

Van Rooyen v Brown and Another (A3104/2015) [2018] ZAGPJHC 453 (28 June 2018)

The court found that the defects identified by the respondents were latent and not readily visible upon inspection. The appellant failed to disclose these defects, despite being aware of them, and did not provide valid explanations for her omissions. The evidence showed that the appellant deliberately concealed material information regarding the electric fence and other defects. The voetstoots clause did not protect the appellant because she was aware of the defects and failed to disclose them. The appellant also breached express warranties regarding fixtures and fittings, and failed to provide a valid electrical compliance certificate, resulting in damages to the respondents. The appeal...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 453
Parties
Appellant: Emmerentia Van Rooyen; Respondent: Damon Jay Brown; Respondent: Jenna Cathleen Brown
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Case Number
A3104/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
H Cele, M Twala
Legal Topics
Voetstoots Clause, Latent Defects, Contractual Warranty, Damages for Non Disclosure, Electrical Compliance Certificate
Land and Property Civil Procedure Voetstoots Clause Latent Defects Contractual Warranty Damages for Non Disclosure Electrical Compliance Certificate

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmerentia Van Rooyen

Appellant

Damon Jay Brown

Respondent

Jenna Cathleen Brown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defects in the property sold were latent or patent and whether they were disclosed to the purchasers.
  2. 2 Whether the voetstoots clause protects the seller from liability for latent defects that were known but not disclosed.
  3. 3 Whether the seller breached express warranties regarding fixtures and fittings, including the pool pump and filter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defects identified by the respondents were latent and not readily visible upon inspection. The appellant failed to disclose these defects, despite being aware of them, and did not provide valid explanations for her omissions. The evidence showed that the appellant deliberately concealed material information regarding the electric fence and other defects. The voetstoots clause did not protect the appellant because she was aware of the defects and failed to disclose them. The appellant also breached express warranties regarding fixtures and fittings, and failed to provide a valid electrical compliance certificate, resulting in damages to the respondents. The appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.