Jeandre Development CC v Moolman and Another (3221 of 2010) [2013] NAHCMD 172 (20 June 2013)

Jeandre Development CC v Moolman and Another (3221 of 2010) [2013] NAHCMD 172 (20 June 2013)

The court found that the Quotation was not a binding written contract as it was not signed by both parties and was prepared solely to facilitate a bank loan. The true agreement was oral, with the defendants building the house themselves and the plaintiff providing assistance and access to supplier accounts. The defendants failed to prove their special defence, and the plaintiff proved the terms and performance of the oral agreement, entitling it to the claimed amount.

Citation
[2013] NAHCMD 172
Parties
Plaintiff: Jeandre Development CC; First Defendant: Wessel H Moolman; Second Defendant: Marinda S Moolman
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Case Number
3221 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Oral Agreements, Burden of Proof, Special Defence, Enforceability of Contracts
Source Language
English
Contract Law Building Contracts Oral Agreements Burden of Proof Special Defence Enforceability of Contracts

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

Parties

Jeandre Development CC

Plaintiff

Wessel H Moolman

First Defendant

Marinda S Moolman

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between the parties was oral or written
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are liable to pay the plaintiff the claimed amount under the oral agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Quotation constituted a binding written contract

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Quotation was not a binding written contract as it was not signed by both parties and was prepared solely to facilitate a bank loan. The true agreement was oral, with the defendants building the house themselves and the plaintiff providing assistance and access to supplier accounts. The defendants failed to prove their special defence, and the plaintiff proved the terms and performance of the oral agreement, entitling it to the claimed amount.

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants to pay plaintiff N$228,703.61 plus interest at 20% per annum from 1 February 2009 to date of full and final payment, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs of suit on a party and party scale, including costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.