CONTRACTS – BREACH OF LEASE AGREEMENT; DAMAGES – PROOF THEREOF

CONTRACTS – BREACH OF LEASE AGREEMENT; DAMAGES – PROOF THEREOF

The dispute arose from a written lease agreement in respect of plaintiff’s house which the defendant leased from the plaintiff for a period of 12 months. The lease agreement was renewed several times, with the latest one being for the period of 1 March 2020  – 28 February 2021, after which the defendant moved out of the house. Subsequent thereto the plaintiff sued out summons against the defendant claiming payment of the sum of N$131 859.60 as damages which he alleges he suffered as a result of the defendant’s breach of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement in that she inter alia failed to maintain the house and further failed to deliver the house in the same condition she received it, reasonable wear and tear excluded. The defendant defended the claim and denied that she breached the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

ANGULA DJP considered the facts, evidence and the law and held:

1. In respect of the deposit of N$17 000.00, that the defendant failed to adduce evidence to prove that the deposit amount was utilized to effect alterations to the plaintiff’s house. In any event the defendant did not file a counterclaim claiming refund of the said deposit.
2. In respect of the N$15 000.00 claimed as unpaid rental for February 2021, that no genuine dispute existed in respect of the said amount and that the non-payment was to be ascribed to miscommunication between the plaintiff and his estate agent.
3. That being the case there was no basis in law upon which the plaintiff could claim a penalty of N$600 stipulated in the agreement in the event of defendant paying the rent late in a particular month.
4. In respect of the claim of N$15 000.00 being rental for March 2021 as a result of defendant not giving notice of her intention not to renew the agreement, that there was no contractual obligation on the defendant to give the plaintiff notice of her intention not to renew the agreement. And that such notice only applied in the event the defendant decided to exercise her option to renew the agreement.
5. In respect of the claim of N$4761.00 being expenses incurred in respect of labour to repair the electric fence around the house, that based on the evidence before court, the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the payment of the said sum.
6. On the question whether the defendant had confirmed to the estate agent when she took occupation of the house that the house was in good order and condition, and further whether the defendant undertook to be responsible for the maintenance of inside and outside the house, that it was improbable that the defendant could have confirmed to the estate agent that she received the house in good condition given the fact that when the defendant took occupation during 2018, she drew up a list of defects found existing in the house. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant undertook to be responsible for the inside and outside of the premises including the pruning of the plants and maintaining the swimming pool for the reason that there was no such provision in the lease agreement.
7. As regards the claim for the total sum of N$96 498.60 as expenses incurred to repair the premises, that the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the defects or damages were caused by the defendant’s breach of contract. The court in addition held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that such expenses were fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the defendant was absolved from the instance in respect of this claim.

In the result, the Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.

Amalu v Smith NAHCMD 20 September 2022