Aecom SA (Pty) Limited v Rustenburg Local Municipality (1341/2017) [2023] ZANWHC 8 (1 February 2023)

Aecom SA (Pty) Limited v Rustenburg Local Municipality (1341/2017) [2023] ZANWHC 8 (1 February 2023)

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish locus standi in its declaration by not alleging that it is duly registered as an engineering firm in terms of section 18 of the Engineering Profession Act. The statutory requirement to register is clear and applies to firms providing engineering services. The omission in the pleadings is fatal to the plaintiff's claim for professional fees. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that registration need not be pleaded and that the Act applies only to individuals. The special plea of non-locus standi was accordingly upheld.

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: AECOM SA (PTY) LIMITED; Defendant: RUSTENBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2023
Case Number
1341/2017
Procedural Posture
Special Plea / Trial on Special Plea of Non Locus Standi
Outcome
Special plea of non-locus standi upheld; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim.
Judges
Mahlangu
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Engineering Profession Act, Pleadings Requirements
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Locus Standi Engineering Profession Act Pleadings Requirements

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AECOM SA (PTY) LIMITED

Plaintiff

RUSTENBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Plea / Trial on Special Plea of Non Locus Standi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to claim professional engineering fees without alleging registration under the Engineering Profession Act.
  2. 2 Whether failure to plead registration as an engineering firm in terms of section 18(2) of the Act is fatal to the plaintiff's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is estopped from raising locus standi due to acceptance of services.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish locus standi in its declaration by not alleging that it is duly registered as an engineering firm in terms of section 18 of the Engineering Profession Act. The statutory requirement to register is clear and applies to firms providing engineering services. The omission in the pleadings is fatal to the plaintiff's claim for professional fees. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that registration need not be pleaded and that the Act applies only to individuals. The special plea of non-locus standi was accordingly upheld.

Court Disposition

Special plea of non-locus standi upheld; plaintiff granted leave to amend particulars of claim.

Orders

  • The special plea is granted with costs.
  • The plaintiff is given leave, if so advised, to file amended particulars of claim within 15 days of this order.