THE FACTS

The defendant in this matter purchased immovable property from the plaintiff.  The defendant alleged that there were certain latent defects in the property and that the carport and an outbuilding did not have the necessary approved statutory plans.

The matter was lodged in the deeds office and came up on prep.  The purchaser instructed his bond attorneys not to register the matter due to the alleged latent defects and absence of statutory plans.  The seller alleged that the purchaser had breached the contract by instructing his bond attorneys not to register the matter and thereby repudiating the contract.  The seller cancelled the contract on the basis of this breach.

The seller of immovable property then made application to court for the eviction of the purchaser from property sold.  The purchaser opposed the application on the basis that he was not in breach of the agreement and the seller was thus not entitled to cancel the agreement.

The seller alleged that the voetstoots clause protected him against the allegation of latent defects and the absence of approved statutory plans.

THE PREVIOUS LAW

The law prior to this case was examined.  The case of Van Nieuwkerk v McCrae 2007(5) SA 21 W was discussed.  In this case the court held that in the sale of residential property a buyer is entitled to assume that the building on a property was erected in compliance with all statutory requirements.  This assumption was held to be implied in any agreement relating to the sale of property.  It was further held that it was an implied (or at least tacit term) of such an agreement that alterations to the building also complied with the statutory requirements.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

In this case, the absence of the statutory approvals did not render the property unfit for the purpose for which it was purchased.

The absence of a statutory approval for building alterations on the property constitutes a latent defect.

If a purchaser wishes to avoid the consequences of a voetstoots clause he has to show not only that the seller knew of the defect and did not disclose it, but also that he deliberately concealed it with the intention to defraud.

In this case the purchaser had failed to show that the seller had acted fraudulently  and thus could not avoid the consequences of the voetsoots clause.

The court further found that the purchaser had no basis to instruct his bond attorneys not to register the matter, that this was a breach and the seller was entitled to cancel the agreement.  The Seller was granted the eviction order.

SUMMARY

The importance of this case is that it revisits the issue of approved building plans and ruled that these are to be treated as ordinary latent defects.  If the seller is aware of the absence of these plans, he must disclose this as a latent defect.  If the seller is not aware of the absence of these approved building plans, he is not able to disclose this and the voetstoots clause will protect him.

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER: Save for the contents of this disclaimer, the content of this website is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal or other professional advice. To the extent that you wish to place reliance upon any information contained on this website, you do so totally at your own risk and we accept no responsibility for any loss or damage whatsoever, howsoever arising. In addition, the hyperlinks provided on this website are provided for convenience only. We make no representations or warranties whatsoever in respect of the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, opinions, data and/or content provided on such linked website, nor do we endorse or take any responsibility for the content of any such linked website.