Pretoria property seller loses appeal after concealing defects on land, court orders over R600,000 refund

A Pretoria property owner’s attempt to evade reimbursing over R600,000 for a defective land sale has been overturned as the North Gauteng High Court dismissed his appeal. 

The appeal comes after the high court ruled in 2023 that the seller and director of Bondcor, Werner Serfontein, failed to disclose the latent defect in the property and should refund the buyer.

The buyer, Daphney Chuma, has been embroiled in a legal battle with Serfontein after buying vacant land in Centurion in September 2017.

She paid the deposit in the amount of R270,000 and eventually settled the R600,000 amount which was the purchase price.

She also paid a little over R17,000 for transfer fees and over R20,000 in respect of rates and taxes and other municipal services.

Chuma’s dreams of developing the land quickly turned into a nightmare when the municipality disclosed that there were no approved building plans and the land lay on unstable dolomitic ground, necessitating a costly stability investigation.

Following an assessment by Beverley Keyter from Geostable SA, it was revealed that the land posed a high risk for sinkholes and had essentially no resale value from a residential point of view.

This revelation prompted Chuma to pursue a refund from Serfontein after he failed to disclose these latent defects during the sale.

In 2023, the high court ruled in Chuma's favour, ordering Serfontein to refund her purchase price along with 0.25% per annum interest.

He was also ordered to pay back over R37,000, which Chuma had spent on transfer fees as well as rates and taxes.

Unhappy with the ruling, Serfontein pursued an extensive appeal process. He first applied for leave to appeal in the same court and it was dismissed with costs in October 2024.

Serfontein found temporary relief at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in February 2025 after he was granted a hearing at a full bench of the high court.

Serfontein, through his legal representative, submitted that he was not aware of the latent defect at the time he sold the property. He also said there was no evidence showing that he concealed the latent defect during the sale.

He said he purchased the property in 2016 at an auction for R160,000. He went to the municipality and discovered that there were approved building plans for the property and an existing geological report prepared in 2001 by Johann van der Merwe.

However, he claimed that he did not bother to look at the plans and the report.

He further argued that Chuma was bound by the voetstoots clause which means that property is sold as is with all existing faults and defects. He said Chuma had to prove that he knew about the latent defect and fraudulently concealed it. According to him, she had failed to do so.

However, Chuma countered this by asserting that Serfontein had intentionally concealed crucial information, highlighting inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his knowledge of the property’s issues.

She directed the court to a portion of the transcript of the proceedings in the previous court where Serfontein testified that he was aware of the geological report and the approved building plans. Additionally, he was also provided with both documents. 

The court ultimately ruled against Serfontein, stating that the voetstoots clause does not shield a seller from liability if they are found to have knowingly concealed defects from the buyer.

The court found that the previous court did not misdirect itself in finding that Serfontein was aware of the latent defect at the time of the sale of the property.

"I can find no reason to interfere with the factual findings made by the court a quo as well as the judgment and orders granted, and the appeal stands to be dismissed," said the court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.