Adapt It (Pty) Ltd v Landis + GYR (Pty) Ltd (23576/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 385 (4 June 2021)

Adapt It (Pty) Ltd v Landis + GYR (Pty) Ltd (23576/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 385 (4 June 2021)

The court found that the defendant failed to raise any genuine triable issue regarding claim 1. The evidence showed that the STA was concluded, services were rendered, and payments were made over several years, which is inconsistent with the defendant's denial of the STA's existence. The defendant did not adequately explain its continued payments or provide material facts to support its defence. The court held that claim 1 was liquidated and suitable for summary judgment. However, claim 2 was found to constitute contractual damages, which require mitigation and a value judgment, making it unsuitable for summary judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted for claim 1, and leave to...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 385
Parties
Applicant: Adapt It (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Landis + GYR (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2021
Case Number
23576/2020
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for claim 1; leave to defend granted for claims 2 and 3.
Judges
A C Basson
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contractual Liability, Liquidated Claim, Triable Issue, Mitigation of Damages
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Contractual Liability Liquidated Claim Triable Issue Mitigation of Damages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adapt It (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Landis + GYR (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant disclosed a bona fide defence that is good in law in its affidavit resisting summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the claims advanced by the plaintiff are liquidated and suitable for summary judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the Specific Teaming Agreement (STA) was concluded between the parties and on what terms.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to raise any genuine triable issue regarding claim 1. The evidence showed that the STA was concluded, services were rendered, and payments were made over several years, which is inconsistent with the defendant's denial of the STA's existence. The defendant did not adequately explain its continued payments or provide material facts to support its defence. The court held that claim 1 was liquidated and suitable for summary judgment. However, claim 2 was found to constitute contractual damages, which require mitigation and a value judgment, making it unsuitable for summary judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted for claim 1, and leave to...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for claim 1; leave to defend granted for claims 2 and 3.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is granted against the defendant for payment of R12,411,717.80 (claim 1), less amounts of R7,107,119.79 and R889,421.95 already paid.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay interest compounded monthly on each invoice rendered, from the date the invoice fell due, until the date of payment at the minimum prime overdraft lending rate of Standard Bank.