Total Namibia (Pty) Ltd v OBM Engineering And Petroleum Distributors (SA 9 of 2013) [2015] NASC 10 (30 April 2015)

Total Namibia (Pty) Ltd v OBM Engineering And Petroleum Distributors (SA 9 of 2013) [2015] NASC 10 (30 April 2015)

The agreement, properly interpreted, includes delivery notes as 'source documents' for the verification process. There was no ambiguity or dissensus; the appellant is bound by the agreement as signed. There is no basis for rectification as the agreement reflects the parties' intention.

Citation
[2015] NASC 10
Parties
Appellant: Total Namibia (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: OBM Engineering and Petroleum Distributors CC
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Case Number
SA 9 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contracts, Rectification of Agreements, Rescission of Consent Orders
Source Language
English

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Total Namibia (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

OBM Engineering and Petroleum Distributors CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Proper approach to interpretation of the agreement between the parties
  2. 2 Whether 'source documents' in the agreement includes delivery notes
  3. 3 Whether the agreement is void for lack of consensus (dissensus)

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement, properly interpreted, includes delivery notes as 'source documents' for the verification process. There was no ambiguity or dissensus; the appellant is bound by the agreement as signed. There is no basis for rectification as the agreement reflects the parties' intention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent on the basis of one instructing and two instructed counsel.