Herr v Innomet Projects (Pty) Ltd

The appellant, Herr, leased an apartment from the respondent, Innomet Projects (Pty) Ltd, under a written lease commencing 1 February 2010, later extended by addendum until 30 November 2011. Herr paid a rental deposit of R64 000. During December 2010 Herr became aware that major structural renovations were planned in the unit directly below his apartment, involving extensive construction that would commence in April 2011. Herr notified Innomet that the construction would render the premises uninhabitable, particularly given the presence of a newborn baby, and gave notice that he would vacate by the end of February 2011, which he did. Innomet did not respond to these notices, accepted return of the keys, and inspected the premises, which were found to be in excellent condition. Innomet later re-let the premises at a lower rental. Herr sued for repayment of the deposit; Innomet counterclaimed for damages alleging repudiation and premature termination of the lease.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Gauteng Local Division was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Innomet’s appeal with costs, effectively restoring the magistrate’s court order in favour of Herr, including repayment of the deposit and dismissal of the counterclaim.

The case reaffirms core principles of South African lease law, particularly the lessor’s common-law obligation to ensure commodus usus and peaceful, undisturbed occupation. It confirms that substantial interference with use and enjoyment, even arising from third-party conduct, may justify a lessee’s termination or relief from rental obligations where the lessor fails to act. The judgment also underscores the application of reciprocity of obligations in lease agreements.