Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Ashley-Smith and Others (64/85) [1985] ZASCA 45; [1985] 2 All SA 368 (A) (29 May 1985)

Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Ashley-Smith and Others (64/85) [1985] ZASCA 45; [1985] 2 All SA 368 (A) (29 May 1985)

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a right of retention over the respondents' properties. The respondents had paid Brewland, the developer, the full contract price for the construction of their homes, and any shortfall between Brewland and the appellant did not constitute unjust enrichment of the respondents. The payments made by the respondents to Brewland must be taken into account when determining enrichment, and the evidence showed that none of the respondents were enriched at the expense of the appellant. Furthermore, there was no contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondents, and a retention right ex contractu could not be enforced against...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 45
Parties
Appellant: Wynland Construction (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Jeannette Alma Ashley-Smith; Respondent: Eunice Diedericks; Respondent: Hilary Joan Le Roux; Respondent: P A Venter Beleggings (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1985
Case Number
64/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Corbett, Miller, Joubert
Legal Topics
Retention Right, Unjust Enrichment, Contractual Privity, Building Contracts, Onus of Proof
Land and Property Civil Procedure Retention Right Unjust Enrichment Contractual Privity Building Contracts Onus of Proof

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wynland Construction (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Jeannette Alma Ashley-Smith

Respondent

Eunice Diedericks

Respondent

Hilary Joan Le Roux

Respondent

P A Venter Beleggings (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has a right of retention over the respondents' properties due to improvements made.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether any contractual privity exists between the appellant and the respondents to justify a retention right.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a right of retention over the respondents' properties. The respondents had paid Brewland, the developer, the full contract price for the construction of their homes, and any shortfall between Brewland and the appellant did not constitute unjust enrichment of the respondents. The payments made by the respondents to Brewland must be taken into account when determining enrichment, and the evidence showed that none of the respondents were enriched at the expense of the appellant. Furthermore, there was no contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondents, and a retention right ex contractu could not be enforced against...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two advocates.