About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZANCHC 39
|
|
De Wit v Hoffman (1026/2009) [2011] ZANCHC 39 (19 December 2011)
Reportable:
YES / NO
Circulate
to Judges: YES / NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES / NO
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(Northern Cape High
Court, Kimberley)
Case
No: 1026/2009
Heard:
13/ 12 / 2011
Delivered:
19 /12 / 2011
In
the matter between:
DAVID
FRANCOIS DE WIT
….................................................
Plaintiff
v
ANDREW
THOMAS HOFFMAN
….........................................
Defendant
JUDGMENT
KGOMO JP
This case has been set
down for trial for three days. However, the defendant did not
instruct counsel to appear on his behalf
nor is he present. He has
intimated in a letter dated 28 November 2011 through his attorneys
that he is not in a financial position
to fund a trial and also not
in a healthy condition to attend the trial. He has nevertheless not
asked for a postponement. He
may have been dissuaded from doing so
by the fact that he had previously done so on the eve of the trial
that was scheduled for
01-03 November 2010. Defendant was notified
by plaintiff’s attorneys that they would proceed to obtain the
relief sought,
as they are entitled to insist.
On 25 October 2007 the
parties hereto entered into a written contract in terms of which the
defendant sold to the plaintiff an
immovable property, Erf 3106,
Springbok, Northern Cape, with dwellings thereon for R1 745 000-00
and furniture and
equipment for R55 000-00. The dwellings
comprised an unoccupied main house and ten occupied flats. Plaintiff
acquired the
place with his pension money as a bed and breakfast
(B&B) establishment.
Strangely, a month
before the registration and transfer of the property in plaintiff’s
name, which took place on 13 May
2008, the full purchase price was
paid over to the defendant contrary to the instructions of the
plaintiff. Apart from R1 800
000-00 that was paid to the defendant
the plaintiff also incurred R13 040-00 in respect of transfer
legal costs and R84 600-00
towards transfer duty.
In his main claim the
plaintiff now sues for the cancellation or confirmation of the
cancelation of the contract of sale and ancillary
relief. The basis
for the cancellation is essentially, and in summary, that: The
improvements on the property effected by the
defendant were done
wrongfully and unlawfully and/or were not sanctioned or approved by
Springbok Municipality (now called the
Nama Khoi Municipality)and/or
were not erected in accordance with any approved building plans and
specifications and/or the dwellings
do not comply with the National
Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, No 103 of 1977.
The plaintiff, a
Pretoria/Tshwane inhabitant, who wanted to retire to the tranquil
fare-West setting of the Northern Cape, thought
that he had found
the ideal place which could also augment his insubstantial pension
which Ms Valerie Myburgh, a Seeff Property
agent, showed him. The
agent did not alert him to any defects that the property might have.
At face-value, as a layman involving
property, the place looked
impressive to the plaintiff. Shortly after having viewed the
property the plaintiff had a telephonic
discussion with the
defendant/seller and enquired from him whether there was any problem
with the property, in particular the
improvements, that he needed to
know. Defendant responded that there were none.
In due course the
plaintiff discovered the following defects or latent defects from
his own observation and as he was alerted
to or advised by four
experts in the construction industry and whose evidence is dealt
with later. They confirmed:
“
9.1 Die
elektriese installasies op die eiendom voldoen nie aan die Wet op
Beroepsgesondheid en Veiligheid, No.85 van 1993 en SANS
10142-1kode
nie, ten spyte van `n voldoeningssertifikaat vir elektriese
installasies wat op 10 April 2008 deur die Verweerder self
uitgereik
is, en is die verbeterings op die eiendom as gevolg daarvan nie
geskik vir veilige bewoning nie;
9.2 Die badkamer in
woonstel no. 1 het geen venster of uitsuigwaaier of enige ander
voorsiening vir ventilasie nie;
9.3 Die slaapkamer
in woonstel no. 1 se enigste venster is na die motorhuis en nie na
buite;
9.4 Die buitevenster
wat op die bouplan van die woonstel no. 1 verskyn, is nie aangebring
nie;
9.5 Daar is `n
kragprop direk onder `n kraan in woonstel no 1;
9.6 Die
slaapkamervenster in woonstel no. 2 is nie op die bouplan aangedui
nie en word nie so na aan die erfgrens toegelaat nie;
9.7 Die konstruksie
van woonstel no. 3 is swak en toon tekens van onstabiliteit;
9.8 Die dakbalke van
woonstel no. 3 nie aan voorgeskrewe spesifikasies vir die span van
die balke voldoen nie;
9.9 Die noord –
westelike muur van woonstel 3, wat ook as skeidsmuur van die
aanliggende erf dien, oor geen versterkings beskik
nie;
9.10 Die konstruksie
van woonstel no. 4 is swak en toon tekens van onstabiliteit;
9.11 Woonstelle no.
6 en 7 nie oor behoorlike fondasies beskik nie;
9.12 Die standak van
golfsink by woonstel no. 8 het `n baie lae helling en voldoen nie aan
die voorgeskrewe spesifikasies nie;
9.13 Daar ernstige
rioleringsprobleme op die eiendom ondervind word, waaronder riool wat
deur die toilet in woonstel no. 9 opstoot,
afvoerpype wat nie
behoorlik geinstaleer of gekoppel is nie, rioleringspype wat nie
druktoetse sal slaag nie en `n algememe gebrek
aan mangate, steekoë
en inspeksiepunte;
9.14 Woonstel no. 9
toon erge vogprobleme weens `n gebrek aan enige of voldoende
vogbeskerming of – behandeling;
9.15 Die toilet in
een van die slaapkamers in die hoofwoning beskik oor geen ventilasie
nie;
9.16 Die afvoerpyp
van woonstel no. 4 en 6 se kombuiswasbakke en woonstelle no.6, 7 en 8
se storte loop bogronds in die tuin uit.
9.17 Die erfgrens
van die noordekant van die eiendom oorskry in die padreserwe van die
pad R355 met 4,61 meter;
9.18 Die motorhuis
en motor afdak asook woonstelle no. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 en 10 `n hoek
van woonstel no. 5 en `n groter gedeelte van
woonstel no. 4 val buite
die gespesifiseerde boulyne;
9.19 Die
verbeterings oorskry die toegelate dekking van die erf met 57
vierkante meter;
9.20 Die huidige
parkeerplekke op die eiendom (7 tot hoogstens 8) voldoen nie aan die
parkeervereiste van 14 parkeerplekke nie.”
The defendant, in his
plea and further particulars to the plaintiff’s request in
terms of Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Court,
acknowledges the bulk of
these defects upon the plaintiff’s complaint to him and
attempted to fix them. However the workmanship
was shoddy and the
problems persisted; some of the defects are irreparable as the
experts’ evidence will demonstrate.
Plaintiff testified
that had he known of these defects he would not have purchased the
property. He, his wife and some occupants
suffered electric shocks
when they showered and when they used electrical appliances.
Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant,
a qualified
electrician, issued his own Certificate of Compliance (irregularly
it must be added) in a bid to satisfy the requirements
of Act No 85
of 1993 and SANS 10142-1 code, the municipal inspector on this
terrain, Mr Gideon Venter, declared the electrical
installations to
be life threatening. The tenants of the ten flats were warned of the
danger and given two weeks eviction notices
after which the place
was closed down and has stood empty since July 2008. As will be seen
later it is this closure act which
gave rise to one of the claims
for loss of income.
THE EXPERT
WITNESSES
Mr
Attie Ebersöhn is an expert on evaluation of properties. He was
tasked by the plaintiff to evaluate the property in question
after
certain defects emerged. He has produced an 82 page report, complete
with colour photos and annotations on the main house
and the ten
flats. He also spoke to this report in Court. He has valued the
property at no more than R600 000-00, excluding
the cost of
demolition of some of the structures and carting away the rubble. If
I have to summarise in one sentence Mr Ebers
hn’s
evidence it is this: Mr De Wit, if you want peace of mind and a
long-lasting building, demolish everything and start
afresh.
Mr Petrus Johannes
Francois Louw is an on-contract inspector of buildings for the
National Home Builders Registration Council
(NHBRC) and has
inspected more than 3500 buildings since 2004. His career in the
building industry started in 1974. He is unquestionably
an expert.
He was concise in his evidence which is based on his report,
reflected below:
“
Verslag
oor bevindings gevind Inspeksie Gedoen op 21 Maart 2011: Erf 3106, te
Springbok (ook bekend as Rita’s B&B)
Genbee
Property Inspector
bied `n onafhanklike inspeksie-verslag op
residensiële en kommersiële eiendomme, ten einde `n
betroubare verslag van die
kwaliteit asook toestand van die geboue
aan sy kliënt uit te wys.
Die
inspekteurs van
Genbee
is gekwalifiseerde inspekteurs in die
boubedryf, by wyse van`n Tegniese Diploma, ambagte in verskillende
rigtings en affiliasies
met verskeie ander organisasies –
organisasies soos National Home Builders Registration Council (
NHBRC
)
en International Timber Construction (
ITC
vir Oprigting van
Dakkappe) ---. So is
Genbee
byvoorbeeld, vir 7 jaar reeds die
Inspektoraat wat die oprigting van huise inspekteur - en méér
spesifiek, vir die
NHBRC
in die Noord-Kaap, wat dus Springbok
ook insluit ---. Eerstens, dien dit gemeld te word dat daar
GROOTSKAALSE onreëlmatighede
op dié betrokke
eiendom teenwoordig is!---.
A.
Die Ebersöhn-verslag
: Menig
e van die gebreke, versuim,
asook oorskrydings, wat ek heelhartig ondersteun
asook mee
saamstem
, is reeds deur die Geswore Waardeerder in sy
gedetailleerde verslag (met gepaardgaande foto‟s) gedek.
B.
Dié
Genbee-verslag
moet as
aanvullende
en
ondersteunende
kommentaar tot die Ebersöhn-verslag gesien
word – dus méér spesifiek op boupraktyke,
-regulasies, -standaarde,
asook -afwykings gerig, ten einde nie
onnodig te dupliseer nie (ook met verwysing na die gebruik van
foto’s), maar tog met
bevestiging
van kommentaar, of
waar onduidelikeheid mag bestaan (bv verwysing na gebrek aan
fondasie) as oogmerk.
C.
Nasionale Bouregulasies
: Daar is
GROOTSKAALSE
onreëlmatighede
en
gebrekkige boupraktyke
op die
eiendom teenwoordig, met
vele oortredings
wat
strydig
met
die Munisipale, Provinsiale, asook Nasionale Bouregulasies is!
D.
Boulyne
: Daar is
verskeie OORSKRYDINGS
van die
vereiste
4m (sykante)
en
8m (straatfront) boulyne
hier teenwoordig,
wat
ONWETTIG
is. Dit beteken dat die woonhuis se garage en
motorafdak, sowel as woonstelle 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 en 10 tegnies
ONWETTIG
is, omdat dit in geheel, of vir die grootste deel
daarvan,
buite die boulyne
val. ‘n Groot gedeelte van
woonstel 4 en ‘n klein gedeelte van woonstel 5, oorskry ook die
boulyne. Die hele grensmuur
en selfs ‘n hoek van woonstel 10 se
struktuur, val binne die
4,61m oorskryding
van die padreserwe
van die
Nasionale pad
R355!
Die
OORSKRYDINGS
is natuurlik
ONWETTIG
. Sien oorskrydings
op terreinplan, vir beter kennisname, Ebersöhn-verslag, bl 38.
Verwys
ook verder na die
Landmeter,
Mnr C.D. Venter, se
bevestiging
van genoemde
oorskryding
in die Ebersöhn-verslag, bl
70.
Die
huidige geboue
OORSKRY
die
toegelate dekking
– en
wel met
soveel as 57m
2
!
E.
Dakke
: Dakkonstruksie is
NIE op standaard
nie - sien
NHBRC handleiding Deel 3 seksie 4 item 4-5-3
en
tekening
ct4-ct5-ct6
(Let wel:
Handgemaakte
dakkappe
MOET
gespyker EN gebout word
en
MOET
deur ‘n
ingenieur
ontwerp word!). Daar is tekens van dakke wat
uitsak
. Daar
is verskeie tekens van dakke wat
lek
, waarvan die
Verkoper
bewus moes gewees het
; Daar is ook
NIE versterkings
(of
“hurricane clips”) aangebring nie; Dakke is
nie orals
diggemaak
nie en ‘
closers’ ook nie aangebring nie
.
Kappe
slegs gespyker Daklatte nie ooral met draad of “hurricane
clips” bevestig nie
F.
Fondasies:
Daar is bewys van strukture
SONDER
, en
gedeeltelik sonder fondasie
(woonstelle 6 en 7), wat eers aan
die lig gekom het
nadat
daar met herstelwerk aan die riool
begin is (en dit ná klagtes van die nuwe eienaar) en dié
gebrek toe eers waargeneem
is toe nuwe rioolpype onder die geboue
aangebring moes word.
G.
Onstabiele Muur
: Die grensmuur by woonstel 3, is slegs ‘n
enkel ry
baksteenmuur; dit het verskeie
groot krake en
barste
, dit is duidelik
onstabiel
en bied „n
GROOT
GEVAAR
vir inwoners – ook van die aangrensende perseel.
H.
Ongeskik vir B&B / Self-sorg Gastehuis gebruik
: Daar is
bewys van die B&B wooneenhede wat
definitief nie geskik
vir
bewoning is nie: Woonstel 1, 2, 3 en 9. Ander weer is
uiters
gevaarlik
(woonstel 3) of het
GEEN
(of gedeeltelik geen)
fondasie nie
(woonstel 6 en 7) wat dus ook
NIE BEWOON
mag
word nie! Weens gebrekkige boupraktyke, word woonheid 8
nie
eens
as ‘n “gebou” gereken nie.
Buitemuur
van 16mm houtstroke kraak agv aanbouing sonder behoorlike intanding
en is onaanvaarbaar groot.
Sien
National Building Regulations Act A 17 (1) (a)-(w)
Verder,
woonstel 9, wat
grotendeels ONDER die grondvlak lê
(wat
HEELWAT laer
as die
NHBRC-voorskrifte
is) en waar
gevolglike
vog
dus in
mure agter muurpanele en kaste
toegebou en VERSTEEK was
, hou ‘n besliste
gesondheidsrisiko
in!
I.
Riolering en Loodgieterswerk
: Hierdie aspek van die bouwerk,
is
UITERS gebrekkig
en die stesel in totaal, kan
NIE
behoorlik funksioneer
nie.
Die
sogenaame “regstellings” wat die Verkoper aangebring het,
het weinig daartoe bygedra om die probleem van die
swak en
gebrekkige riolering
op te los!
Vuilwater
loop in die grond in - Sien National Building Regulations Act A 17
(1) (a)-(w)
Die
helling
waarmee die riool val (langs W/S 9), is te
veel
en
sal dus die water te vinig laat loop en die vaste dele sal dan agter
bly wat
verstopping
sal veroorsaak. Sien
National Building
Regulations Act A 17 (1) (a)-(w) spesifiek (e) en (h).
J.
Parkeer Vereistes
: Vir dié hoeveelheid wooneenhede,
moes daar ten minste 14 permanente parkeerplekke op die perseel
beskikbaar gewees het.
Met die motorhuis in ag genome, sal daar
beswaarlik 7 parkeerplekke ingeruim kan word, wat dus heeltemal
ontoereikend
is en verder nog geen parkeerplek vir kuiergaste
laat nie. Verwys ook na die Ebersöhn-verslag, bl 37.
K.
Buite Mure
: Volgens die
National Building Regulations Act
17 (1) (a) – (w)
kan buite-mure
nie
met houtstroke
gebou word nie, as gevolg van die
mootlikheid van brand
.
L.
Algemeen: Afwerking
is oor die
algemeen swak
, tot in
sommige gevalle,
uiters swak. Barste en krake is volop
, Vir
die
kenner
, is die tekens van
vorige onsuksesvolle
toesmeerpogings, volop
.
Swak vogbeheer
, is tekenend van
hierdie bouwerk.
Natuurlike
grondvlak, is méér as 1.2m as die vloer van die
vertrek, vog in die mure.
Swak
beplanning
en
bouaanpaasings
is gemaak waar gebrek aan
voorsiening vir
stormwater
, „n besliste
oorstromingsrisiko
is.
Let
wel
:
Oorskrydings is hier die reël, nie die uitsondering
nie
!
M.
Elektrisiteit
: Alhoewel hierdie verslag hoofsaaklik oor
bouregulasies & -standaarde handel, kan die
LEWENSGEVAARLIKE
gebreke wat die
elektrisiteit
betref en wat die perseel na
vorige “regstellings” steeds
onbewoonbaar
maak,
NIE
buite rekening gelaat word nie! Die perseel blyk eintlik
reeds vóór die kooptransaksie
onveilig vir menslike
bewoning
te gewees het, toe dit nog as “Rita‟s B&B”
teen mark-verwante inkomste bedryf is – dit is volgens die
kommentaar van die 1ste elektriese verslag, opgeneem in die
Ebersöhn-waardasieverslag, bl 58.
N.
Nama Khoi Munisipaliteit – Bou Planne en Bou-Inspeksies
:
Met my besoek aan die Nama Khoi Munisipalitiet (21 Maart 2011), kon
die Dorpsraad se
Bou-inspekteur GEEN bewys lewer
dat daar wel
enige
goedgekeurde bouplanne en/of bou-inspeksies
op die
uitgrawings, fondasies, rioolwerk, verskillende vlakke van aanbouings
of dakke, ensovoorts, gedoen is nie. Niks hiervan was
op lêer
beskikbaar nie.
Met
verwysing na die brief van Nama Khoi aan Mnr Hoffmann gedateer 20 Aug
2004, word daar melding gemaak van
bouplanne
wat
NIE
goedgekeur
is nie, asook ander planne wat nog nie gelewer is nie.
Nóg die planne, nóg enige opvolg korrespondensie was op
lêer.
Volgens die gemelde skrywe word daar in die 3de paragraaf
duidelik beveel dat:
“
GEEN
gebou
opgerig mag word
VOOR
die
voorafgaande, skriftelike goedkeuring van die plaaslike owerheid nie.
Dus u planne
MOET
eers
GOEDGEKEUR
word
VOORDAT
u
met bouwerk begin.”
Mnr
Hoffmann
, wat die
aanmaning
dus duidelik
geïgnoreer
het om planne in te dien en op goedkeuring te wag, het eenvoudig
net
voortgegaan
met
onwettige boupraktyke,
asook
besetting
van geboue
SONDER
die nodige
goedkeuringsertifikate;
Die
Bou-Inspekteursafdeling
, wat ten spyte van kennisname van Mnr
Hoffmann se voorneme om met bouwerk te begin,
nie
enige
opvolg-besoek
(of besoeke) gebring het of enige sanksies
ingestel het teen die
ONWETTIGE strukture
wat
sonder
goedgekeurde bouplanne
(en bou-inspeksies) opgerig is en
onwettig beset
is nie.
Let
wel: Menige van dié menige oorskrydings en gebreke (insluitend
gepaardgaande kostes), kon wel
VERHOED
gewees het indien
korrekte boupraktyke reeds
vanaf die begin af
, volgens
voorgeskrewe bouregulasies en boustandaarde
gedoen en toegepas
is, asook daarna met
gereelde bou-inspeksies
opgevolg is!
Hoeveel van die uitbreidings is nie ná 2004 opgerig nie?”
Now
for the evidence of Mr Gideon Ernst Venter. The report and updated
report by Mr Venter run into more than 10 pages. He gave
evidence in
detail and elaborated considerably on his report. As can be noted
hereinafter he is extremely concerned that the
plaintiff
1
almost gratuitously
exposed the lives of the occupants to danger and urged that steps be
taken against them. Because Mr Venter’s
evidence, as with
others’, is uncontroverted as it is basically a default
judgment I will advert only to the concluding
portion of his report
which states:
“
Ten stotte
moet in ag geneem word dat Mnr. Hoffmann, wat op sy
Plumlec-sertifikaat aantoon dat hy die geakkrediteerde person is,
die
volgende bloot maar net gallant van Namaqua Electrical aanvar het:
A. Dat hy mislei
word deur [Mnr. X] met “gevaar zones vir kombuise”, wat
nie bestaan nie;
B. Dat hy betaal het
vir werk wat beslis NIE aan die kodes, OF enige verwagtinge voldoen
nie;
EN
C. Dat [Mnr. X]
bykans R90 000-00 wil invorder (dit is R55 000 van Mnr
Hoffmann en R35 000 van Mnr de Wit) –
dit terwyl:
Die stoof in die
woonhuis NIE eens ten volle gebruik kan word nie – EN verder,
dat dit in elk geval TOTAAL en al BUITENSPORIG
OORLAAI is!
Die stroombreker
wat Woonstel 1, Woonstel 2, asook die Waskamer voer, BUITENSPORIG
OORLAAI is (volgens sy verslag) en tog is NIKS
daaraan gedoen nie.
Nie eens een van
die bestaande 3xgeysers op die perseel `n deurverbindingsgeleier het
nie – en waar dit vantevore, afgesien
van `n OHM lesing van
ONEINDIG, steeds deur Plumlec goegekeur en `n sertifikaat daarvoor
uitgereik is, is dit STEEDS ONVEILIG!
Dat
[AA]
2
werk gedoen het wat
NIE aan die kodes OF enige verwagting voldoen nie – EN hul
selfs sover gegaan het om `n Sertifikaat
van Nakoming daarvoor uit
te reik! Oor die GRUWELIKE en VANDALIGE SKADE aan VERSKILLENDE mure
wat deur [AA] se “regstellings”
veroorsaak is, kan `n
mens maar net absoluut verstom bly staan!
Die Wet is baie
duidelik dat GEEN Sertifikaat van Nakoming uitgeruikl MAG word
indien daar slegs `n ENKELE fout in die installasie
bestaan nie –
en waartoe [Mnr. X] hom, as geakkrediteerde person, ook self
verbvind het (vewys na diè inskrywing
op die laaste bladsy
van [AA] se foute-verslag aan Mnr Hoffmann).
Na die uitwysing
van menige elektriese gebreke – waarvan sommigge selfs
LEWENSGEVAARLIK is en NIE aan SANS kodes voldoen
nie, sal dit egter
aan die Hof se diskresie oorgelaat moet word om te beslis of een, of
dalk albei van die twee geakkrediteerde
lede, nalatig was in die
uitvoering van hul pligte.”
Mr Carel David Venter,
who could not be present deposed to an affidavit to the effect that
he is a qualified Land Surveyor since
1986, was registered with
PLOTO since 1989 and a member of SAG1. He confirms that the
perimeter boundary wall encroaches beyond
the surveyed approved line
by almost 4 meters. That one of the buildings juts beyond the
perimeter boundary by 0,82m. That both
buildings depicted on the
sketch (that was discovered) stretch beyond the permissible building
line restrictions.
It was common cause
that no approved plans for the building could be located. The
defendant did not discover or produce any nor
could any be found in
the custody of the municipality. On this evidence it is evident that
the plans would not have been approved
in any event if all the
information was disclosed.
THE LAW
Clause 13.2 has a
voetstoots provision that stipulates:
“
13.2 Die
eiendom word hiermee voetstoots en onderhewig aan alle bestaande
serwitute, titelvoorwaardes en alle ander voorwaardes
wat mag bestaan
verkoop. Die Verkoper is nie verantwoordelik vir enige tekorte nie en
sal geen voordeel daaruit trek indien die
eiendom by heropmeting
groter is nie.”
The legal position
that currently obtains relating to voetstoots stipulations has been
set out by the Appellate Division in
Van der Merwe v Meades
1991(2) SA 1 (A) at 8B-f. The headnote captures the
principle thus at 1F-G:
“
A
seller will be deprived of the protection afforded by a voetstoots
clause
where the purchaser can prove that the seller (1) was aware of a
defect in the merx at the time of the making of the contract
and (2)
dolo malo concealed its existence from the purchaser with the purpose
of defrauding him.
”
The Court at 8C-D
quoted the following dictum with approval in
Knight v Trollip
1948(3) SA 1009(D) at 1013 where the following was held:
“
I
think it resolves itself to this, viz. that here the seller could be
held liable only in respect of defects of which he knew at
the time
of the making of the contract, being defects of which the purchaser
did not then know. In respect of those defects, the
seller may be
held liable where he has designedly concealed their existence from
the purchaser, or where he has craftily refrained
from informing the
purchaser of their existence. In such circumstances, his liability is
contingent on his having behaved in a
way which amounts to a fraud on
the purchaser, and it would thus seem to follow that, in order that
the purchaser may make him
liable for such defects, the purchaser
must show directly or by inference, that the seller actually knew. In
general, ignorance
due to mere negligence or ineptitude is not, in
such a case equivalent to fraud.
”
The facts which are
uncontroverted or common cause on whether the plaintiff was
defrauded are the following:
16.1 The defendant
bought the property in question as vacant land in 1994;
16.2 The improvements
on the property were all brought about by the defendant and he
remained owner thereof until he sold the property
to the plaintiff
during 2007/2008;
16.3 The defendant is a
qualified electrician and accredited to issue a Certificates of
Compliance (COC) in terms of the Electrical
Installation Regulations,
1992, as envisaged in the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, 1983
(Act 6 of 1983). The defendant
is therefore not a layman when it
comes to the building industry;
16.4 Some of the
buildings were not supported by any foundation or none to speak of.
The evidence of the experts suggests that extensions
to the original
building(s) were made over the years. I cannot see how defendant
could have been unaware of the defects, some of
which are glaring;
16.5 The Seeff agent,
Valerie Myburgh, did not point to any defects, but more importantly,
the defendant in discussion with the
plaintiff before the purchase
and transfer of the property, disavowed any defects, some of which he
(defendant) made feeble attempts
to fix. It must be noted that it is
not suggested that the Seeff agent was aware of the defects.
16.6 The admitted
electrical defects, which are in the defendant’s field of
specialization, were unquestionably known to the
defendant because
enquiries conducted established that even some of the occupants of
the flats received electric shocks.
16.7 The buildings were
erected without any plans having been approved. There is no chance
now of them being approved because, as
shown, a multiplicity of rules
were flouted.
16.8 I am unable to
perceive how the improvements on the property which are destined for
demolition, partly or in total, cannot
be said to have had serious
defects and that the plaintiff has no right of recourse.
I am satisfied that
the defendant was acutely aware of the defects, possibly from the
time that the first building was put up,
and that he has
deliberately withheld this information from the plaintiff and has
therefore defrauded him.
Plaintiff must
therefore succeed in the respects set out below.
In prayer 3 the
plaintiff claims R97 640-00. This amount is made up as follows:
Transfer legal costs - R13 040-00 plus
transfer duty paid to
the Receiver of Revenue R84 600-00. See para 3 (above).
Plaintiff is entitled to recover these demages
and has made out a
proper case for its recovery.
As far as prayer 6 is
concerned: The claim for the amended R162 000-00 relates to the
damages that the plaintiff claims to
have suffered for the 12 months
from July 2008 to June 2009 when the action was instituted. The
amount is calculated at R13 500-00
per month. The rate is based
on what the ten tenants or occupants each paid per month (about
R1600-00 per month each) and what
would reasonably be derived from
the main house (aboutR2 500-00 per month) less expenses for the
rates, water, electricity
and the upkeep for the house. I am
prepared to allow this claim.
As regards claim 7:
The plaintiff claims the same rate of R13 500-00 per month
after the date of issue of the summons which
has to be July 2009
(not June 2009 as this month would be duplicated) to date of this
order which shall be taken as the calendar
month of November 2011:
29 months X R13 500-00 – R391 500-00.
By parity of reasoning
as in para 20 (above) this claim is also allowed.
On the question of
costs:
They should follow the result. Clause 16.5 of the sale
agreement makes provision for costs to be paid on the punitive
scale.
These costs will include the costs of the postponement of the
trial from 01-03 November2010 at defendant’s request. I am
also satisfied that the three expert witnesses were necessary
witnesses and are entitled to their qualifying fees.
In the result I
make the following order:
1. Bevestiging van
kansellasie van die ooreenkoms, aangeheg as
AANHANGSEL “A”
tot die eiser se Besonderhede van Vordering;
2. Terugbetaling van
die bedrag van R1 800 000-00 teen lewering van die eiendom,
meubels en toebehore soos beskryf in
AANHANGESEL “A”
;
3. Betaling van die
bedrag van R97 640-00, synde die kostes verbonde aan die oordrag
van die eiendom;
4. Dat die Verweerder
gelas word om alle nodige stappe te neem en dokumentasie te
onderteken wat nodig mag wees ten einde effek
te gee aan die
bepalings van voormelde bedes;
5. Dat die Balju of sy
adjunk gemagtig word om alle stappe te neem en dokumentasie namens
die Verweerder te onderteken wat nodig
mag wees ten einde effek te
gee aan die bepalings van voormelde bedes indien die Verweerder sou
weier of versuim om sodanige stappe
te neem of dokumentasie te
onderteken;
6. Betaling van die
bedrag van R162 000-00 as synde skadevergoeding vir die tydperk
Julie 2008 tot Junie 2009, as synde skade
gely deur die Eieser weens
verlies aan huurinkomste;
7. Betaling van die
bedrag van R391 500-00 vir die tydperk Junie 2009 tot November
2011 as synde skade gely deur die Eiser
weens verlies aan
huurinkomste;
8. Koste van die geding
op prokureur en eie kliënt skaal, insluitende die koste van die
uitstel van die verhoor vir 01-03 November
2010.
9. Die volgende getuies
word as noodsaaklike getuies geag en is geregtig op hulle deskundige
kwalifiserende fooie:
Mnre Attie Ebersöhn,
Petrus Johannes Francois Louw en Gideon Ernst Venter
.
________________________________
F
DIALE KGOMO
JUDGE-PRESIDENT
Northern
Cape High Court, Kimberley
On behalf of the
Appellant
:
Adv Z Grundlingh
Instructed by:
Engelsman Magabane Inc.
On behalf of the
Respondent
: No Appearance
Instructed by:
1
Mr
Hoffman and Mr X, Mr X is not party to this proceedings, did not
testify and
has
had no right to response. Hence his anonymity.
2
Identity
remains undisclosed.