South Africa Case Law

Gortzen and Another v Moolman (A3022-2021)

Gortzen and Another v Moolman (A3022-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 185 (28 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3022-2021

Judges

Goodman, Dippenaar

The court found that the damp in the property was a latent defect, not apparent to the respondent at the time of purchase. Both appellants were aware of the defect: the second appellant had arranged for extensive cosmetic repairs to conceal the damp, and the first appellant failed to disclose his knowledge of the issue in the sale agreement's disclosure form. The court held that their conduct amounted to fraudulent concealment (dolo malo), rendering the voetstoots clause inapplicable. The measure of damages was appropriately based on the actual cost of repairs, as evidenced by the invoice, si…

Source excerpt

• Latent Defect
• Voetstoots Clause
• Non Disclosure
• Damages Quantification
• Fraudulent Concealment

Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet Services v Fourie N.O and Others - Appeal (CA 136/2022)

Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet Services v Fourie N.O and Others - Appeal (CA 136/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 89 (22 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA 136/2022

Judges

Laing, Gwala

The court found that the respondents failed to prove that Avis, through its directors or controlling managers, had actual knowledge of the radiator defect at the time of sale or deliberately concealed it. The evidence showed that the defect was only noted on a service invoice sent for payment, not for reporting, and was not communicated to the relevant technical staff. The internal procedures and volume of invoices rendered it implausible that the defect came to the attention of those responsible for the sale. There was no evidence of fraud or intentional concealment, and mere negligence or i…

Source excerpt

• Voetstoots Clause
• Fraudulent Concealment
• Latent Defects
• Aedilitian Actions
• Burden Of Proof
• Costs Award

Van Wyk v Steenkamp (1252/2005)

Van Wyk v Steenkamp (1252/2005) [2009] ZANCHC 38 (18 September 2009)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1252/2005

Judge

Majiedt R

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was aware of the latent defect in the roof trusses at the time of the sale or that he intentionally concealed such knowledge to defraud the plaintiff. Both parties were laypersons regarding roof construction, and the defendant had relied on the expert opinion of his cousin, a consulting engineer, who assured him of the roof's safety. The defendant continued to reside in the house for eight years after receiving this reassurance, which supported his bona fides. The plaintiff's case was not bas…

Source excerpt

• Voetstoots Clause
• Latent Defect
• Burden Of Proof
• Fraudulent Concealment

Van Der Merwe v Meades (173/89)

Van Der Merwe v Meades (173/89) [1990] ZASCA 150; 1991 (2) SA 1 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 42 (AD) (28 November 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

173/89

Judges

Joubert, Nestadt, Kumleben, Grosskopf, Nienaber

The court held that a voetstoots clause is displaced only if the purchaser proves the seller knew of a latent defect and fraudulently concealed it.

• Voetstoots Clause
• Latent Defects
• Burden Of Proof
• Fraudulent Concealment
• Voetstoots-clause
• Latent-defects