- A structural engineer declared a newly built Rustenburg house uninhabitable after finding extensive structural problems.
- The builder’s attempt to have the claim dismissed on the grounds of prescription was rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- The dispute now returns to the High Court in Mahikeng, where the homeowner’s claim for damages will be heard.
A newly built house with cracked walls, a sinking floor and extensive structural damage was eventually declared uninhabitable by a structural engineer, kicking off a legal battle that made its way to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The court has now cleared the way for Ruan Janse van Vuuren’s damages claim against WJB Stieger Konstruksie (Pty) Ltd. Judge of Appeal DS Molefe delivered the unanimous judgment, sending the matter back to the High Court in Mahikeng for a full trial.
The dispute started with a building contract signed in September 2015. WJB Stieger Konstruksie agreed to build Janse van Vuuren’s home in Schoongezigt Estate, Rustenburg, according to National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) technical standards and promised to fix any major structural defects that appeared within five years of occupation.
Dream home quickly develops serious defects
Construction was completed in September 2016, and Janse van Vuuren took occupation on 31 October that year. Within weeks, cracks appeared in the walls, and the floor in the bar area began to sink. Janse van Vuuren immediately reported the issues to the builder, which then carried out repairs in January 2017. The problems continued to worsen.
In November 2017, another big crack appeared, prompting WJB Stieger Konstruksie to hire a structural engineer to assess the home’s condition.
The engineer inspected the property and, in a report dated 30 January 2018, found severe cracks between concrete beams and brickwork, wall cracks throughout the lower ground floor bedrooms and balcony, extensive cracking in the bar and lounge, and roof leaks. The report stated that major repairs were needed as the house was uninhabitable.
Following the engineer’s findings, Janse van Vuuren’s lawyer demanded that the builder make all the recommended repairs. WJB Stieger Konstruksie returned to the house in October 2018 and tried again to fix the problems, but these attempts did not resolve the structural issues.
Multi-million rand claim follows
Janse van Vuuren then sued the builder, claiming R4 638 738.29 for the estimated cost of repairs. He also asked for R20,000 a month to cover alternative accommodation while the house remained unsafe to live in. Instead of defending the case on its merits, WJB Stieger Konstruksie argued the claim had expired due to prescription.
The trial court dismissed this argument. However, the Full Court in the High Court later ruled in the builder’s favour, finding that prescription began when Janse van Vuuren became aware of the structural defects and that the claim was brought too late.
Supreme Court rejects prescription defence
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Full Court had handled the case incorrectly. Judge Molefe said the Full Court had failed to distinguish between becoming aware of structural defects and establishing that the builder had breached its obligation to repair them.
“The former is a precondition to activate the warranty, the latter is a precondition to bring a claim for damages for its breach,” the judge said. The court noted that the evidence showed WJB Stieger Konstruksie continued attempting repairs long after the defects had first been identified and never communicated that it would refuse to honour its warranty.
“It is uncontested that Stieger Konstruksie was still actively attempting to repair the defects as late as 15 October 2018, when it carried out further repair work at its own cost,” Judge Molefe said.
The court held that the builder had failed to prove Janse van Vuuren possessed all the facts necessary to institute a damages claim more than three years before summons was served.
Judge Molefe added, “Prescription runs only when the creditor has a complete cause of action and is in a position to enforce the right in law, not merely when the right arises. Mere awareness of the defects is not knowledge of a legally enforceable claim.”
High Court to determine liability
The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in Janse van Vuuren’s favour, set aside the Full Court’s order and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the prescription argument. Costs were awarded to Janse van Vuuren.
The case now returns to the High Court, where the court will decide if WJB Stieger Konstruksie is responsible for the structural defects and the damages claimed by Janse van Vuuren.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
