Pindur vs Benoiton Construction Company [Pty] Ltd and another (CC 18/2013) [2014] SCSC 124 (28 March 2014)

Pindur vs Benoiton Construction Company [Pty] Ltd and another (CC 18/2013) [2014] SCSC 124 (28 March 2014)

The plaintiff failed to prove with particularity the extent of unjustified delay attributable to the first defendant. The penalty clause was manifestly excessive and would have been capped at US$21,000.00 if liability was established. The plaintiff failed to prove payment for extra works, and the first defendant's counterclaim for SR800,000.00 was allowed.

Citation
[2014] SCSC 124
Parties
Plaintiff: Ernst Pindur; First Defendant: Benoiton Construction Company [Pty] Ltd; Second Defendant: Alderick Benoiton
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Case Number
CC 18/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; first defendant's counterclaim allowed.
Legal Topics
Building Contract, Delay in Performance, Penalty Clauses, Counterclaim for Extra Works
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Building Contract Delay in Performance Penalty Clauses Counterclaim for Extra Works

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernst Pindur

Plaintiff

Benoiton Construction Company [Pty] Ltd

First Defendant

Alderick Benoiton

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was unjustified delay by the first defendant in execution of the building contract
  2. 2 Whether the penalty for delay was manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove with particularity the extent of unjustified delay attributable to the first defendant. The penalty clause was manifestly excessive and would have been capped at US$21,000.00 if liability was established. The plaintiff failed to prove payment for extra works, and the first defendant's counterclaim for SR800,000.00 was allowed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; first defendant's counterclaim allowed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action against both defendants dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment for the first defendant for SR800,000.00 with interest at the legal rate from date of filing until payment in full and costs.