South Africa Case Law

Richards v Ellite Body Pannels (Pty) Ltd t/a Midrand Motorcycles and Another (NCT-360566-2024-75(1)(b))

Richards v Ellite Body Pannels (Pty) Ltd t/a Midrand Motorcycles and Another (NCT-360566-2024-75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 35 (2 June 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT-360566-2024-75(1)(b)

Judges

MC Peenze, C Sassman, CJ Ntsoane

The Tribunal found that the motorcycle was defective and unsafe at the time of sale, specifically due to a faulty starter and subsequent gearbox issues. The first respondent failed to disclose these defects and attempted to contract out of statutory liability through 'as is' and 'voetstoots' clauses, which are unlawful under the CPA. The respondent's refusal to refund the purchase price unconditionally and unauthorized repairs further contravened the applicant's rights. The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, and the respondent's conduct constitute…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Implied Warranty Of Quality
• Voetstoots Clause
• Prohibited Conduct
• Refund Of Purchase Price

Knoetze v Botes N.O (1802/2020)

Knoetze v Botes N.O (1802/2020) [2025] ZAECMKHC 37 (15 April 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1802/2020

Judge

Rugunanan

The court held the developer liable for damages after finding it fraudulently failed to disclose a latent roof-truss defect that caused a fire.

• Latent Defect
• Fraudulent Non Disclosure
• Building Regulations
• Voetstoots Clause
• Expert Evidence
• Damages Quantification

Snyman v Ferreira and Others (1671/2024)

Snyman v Ferreira and Others (1671/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 73 (26 November 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1671/2024

Judge

NJ Mullins

The court found that, regardless of whether a written lease existed, was cancelled, or a month-to-month lease was terminated, the respondents were unlawful occupiers under PIE. The applicant complied with statutory requirements for eviction. The respondents, though elderly and not destitute, refused reasonable offers of alternative accommodation and failed to pay rent and charges timeously. The disputed lease agreement terminated on 31 December 2024, but the court granted an extension to 31 January 2025 for vacation, conditional on timely payment. The High Court's jurisdiction was deemed an u…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Lease Termination
• Voetstoots Clause
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Atlas Truck Centre (Pty) Ltd v Gio Logistics (Pty) Ltd (2024/006294)

Atlas Truck Centre (Pty) Ltd v Gio Logistics (Pty) Ltd (2024/006294) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1193 (20 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/006294

Judge

GC Wright

The High Court held that a voetstoots clause did not exclude the implied warranty against eviction. Atlas recovered the trailer purchase price, interest, and costs.

• Implied Warranty Against Eviction
• Voetstoots Clause
• Sale Of Goods
• Exclusion Of Warranty
• Voetstoots-clause
• Implied-warranty-against-eviction

Ndlovu obo Sbuyile Transport (Pty) Ltd v Edan Traders (Pty) Ltd (NCT/242384/2022/75(1)(b))

Ndlovu obo Sbuyile Transport (Pty) Ltd v Edan Traders (Pty) Ltd (NCT/242384/2022/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 35 (30 August 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/242384/2022/75(1)(b)

Judges

Zodwa Ntuli, Selwyn Hockey, Sithembiso Mbhele

The Tribunal found that a second-hand truck sold by the respondent was defective and unsafe, declared prohibited conduct, and ordered repayment of the purchase price.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Voetstoots Clause
• Implied Warranty
• Misrepresentation
• Prohibited Conduct
• Refund Of Purchase Price

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

VAW Belingsings (Pty) Limited Liquidation v MKD Properties (Pty) Limited (A118/2022)

VAW Belingsings (Pty) Limited Liquidation v MKD Properties (Pty) Limited (A118/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2013 (14 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A118/2022

Judges

Mogotsi, Van der Westhuizen, Coetzee

The court found that Mr Pretorius, acting as auctioneer, made intentional misrepresentations regarding the dam's water rights and value, which induced the respondent to purchase the property. The evidence showed that Mr Pretorius lacked accurate information about the dam, its water source, and servitudes, yet he made definitive statements to promote the sale and deliberately cut off further discussion. This conduct amounted to dolus eventualis, as he reconciled himself with the possibility of misleading the purchaser. The voetstoots clause in the agreement of sale does not protect against int…

Source excerpt

• Voetstoots Clause
• Intentional Misrepresentation
• Latent Defects
• Contract Cancellation
• Auction Sale
• Servitudes

Cole v Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd (10296/2022)

Cole v Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd (10296/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1332 (10 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10296/2022

Judge

Mia

The High Court dismissed Mr Cole’s application for leave to appeal against an order compelling compliance with a sale agreement for immovable property.

• Leave To Appeal Standard
• Specific Performance
• Voetstoots Clause
• Contract Termination
• Material Defect
• Sale Of Immovable Property

Masehla v N.G and Another (2019/40372)

Masehla v N.G and Another (2019/40372) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1165 (16 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/40372

Judge

Moorcroft

The High Court dismissed an application to remove a bar, finding no reasonable explanation for a three-year delay and no need to reach a bona fide defence.

• Removal Of Bar
• Condonation
• Contract Of Sale
• Voetstoots Clause
• Prescription Act
• Latent Defects

Oosdeel Saalperdstoet 2 (Pty) Ltd v Bernardo and Others (5702/2022)

Oosdeel Saalperdstoet 2 (Pty) Ltd v Bernardo and Others (5702/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 388 (5 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5702/2022

Judge

Naidoo

The court granted an eviction order after finding the applicants validly cancelled a farm sale agreement and the respondents failed to prove a retention lien.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Occupational Rent
• Voetstoots Clause
• Right Of Retention
• Contract Cancellation
• Eviction Proceedings