Du Plesiss v Ndjavera (APPEAL 245 of 2001) [2001] NAHC 32 (27 September 2001)

Du Plesiss v Ndjavera (APPEAL 245 of 2001) [2001] NAHC 32 (27 September 2001)

The defendant's obligation to pay the amount of N$47,000 plus interest for movables sold and delivered was not reciprocal to the plaintiff's obligation to render services regarding pipelines and boreholes; these were collateral and distinct obligations. Therefore, the exceptio non adimpleti contractus was not a competent defence, and the plaintiff's claim succeeded.

Citation
[2001] NAHC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: George Diederik Du Plessis; Defendant: Vasana Ndjavera
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
27 September 2001
Case Number
APPEAL 245 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claim allowed
Legal Topics
Reciprocal Obligations, Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus, Interpretation of Contracts, Specific Performance
Source Language
English
Contract Law Reciprocal Obligations Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus Interpretation of Contracts Specific Performance

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Diederik Du Plessis

Plaintiff

Vasana Ndjavera

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's obligation to pay the acknowledged indebtedness was reciprocal to the plaintiff's obligation to render services, thus entitling the defendant to raise the exceptio non adimpleti contractus as a defence
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with all his obligations that constituted conditions precedent to payment of the acknowledged indebtedness
  3. 3 Whether the parties subsequently entered into a contract excusing the plaintiff from discharging the obligations he failed to perform under the acknowledgement

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's obligation to pay the amount of N$47,000 plus interest for movables sold and delivered was not reciprocal to the plaintiff's obligation to render services regarding pipelines and boreholes; these were collateral and distinct obligations. Therefore, the exceptio non adimpleti contractus was not a competent defence, and the plaintiff's claim succeeded.

Court Disposition

claim allowed

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of N$47,000.00.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff interest on the amount of N$47,000.00 at the rate of 23% per annum calculated from 1 September 1996 to date of payment.