Tsoelopele Consultants & Contractors v Lesotho (CIV/APN 221 of 2009) [2010] LSHC 13 (15 September 2010)

Tsoelopele Consultants & Contractors v Lesotho (CIV/APN 221 of 2009) [2010] LSHC 13 (15 September 2010)

The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was responsible for the delays after 23rd February 2007 and did not comply with the contractual requirement to give written notice of any problematic delays. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to impose the penalty and forfeit the performance bond as per the contract.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] LSHC 13
Parties
Plaintiff: Tsoelopele Consultants & Contractors; Defendant: Lesotho Electricity Company
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
15 September 2010
Case Number
CIV/APN 221 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract Dispute) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Legal Topics
Performance Bond, Contractual Penalties, Delay in Performance, Forfeiture of Security
Source Language
english
Contract Law Commercial Law Performance Bond Contractual Penalties Delay in Performance Forfeiture of Security

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsoelopele Consultants & Contractors

Plaintiff

Lesotho Electricity Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract Dispute) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was entitled to impose a penalty and forfeit the performance bond under the contract terms
  2. 2 Whether the delay in contract completion was attributable to the plaintiff or the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was responsible for the delays after 23rd February 2007 and did not comply with the contractual requirement to give written notice of any problematic delays. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to impose the penalty and forfeit the performance bond as per the contract.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed.