Amanzi For People Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nomano Trading and Others (25/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 300 (26 November 2021)

Amanzi For People Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nomano Trading and Others (25/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 300 (26 November 2021)

The court found that the plaintiffs had fulfilled their contractual obligations by supplying, manufacturing, and delivering the required equipment. There was no express provision in the contract making time of the essence, nor any penalty clause for late performance. The defendants themselves did not adhere strictly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 300
Parties
Plaintiff: Amanzi For People Trading (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: LMB Project Management & Engineering Services (Edms) Bpk; Defendant: Nomano Trading; Defendant: Makamohelo Trading; Defendant: MBB Trading
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2021
Case Number
25/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim succeeds; defendants ordered to pay the claimed amount and costs.
Judges
NS Daniso
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Contractual Obligations, Late Performance, Remedies for Breach, Engineering Contracts
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Specific Performance Contractual Obligations Late Performance Remedies for Breach Engineering Contracts

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Amanzi For People Trading (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

LMB Project Management & Engineering Services (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

Nomano Trading

Defendant

Makamohelo Trading

Defendant

MBB Trading

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs fulfilled their contractual obligations entitling them to payment.
  2. 2 Whether time was of the essence in the contract and if late performance disentitled the plaintiffs to remuneration.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were justified in refusing payment due to alleged breach by the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had fulfilled their contractual obligations by supplying, manufacturing, and delivering the required equipment. There was no express provision in the contract making time of the essence, nor any penalty clause for late performance. The defendants themselves did not adhere strictly to the payment timelines, and at no stage did they inform the plaintiffs of the cancellation of the main contract or their evacuation of the site. The evidence showed that the plaintiffs submitted the necessary progress reports and invoices, and the delay in manufacturing the bridge was due to circumstances beyond their control. The defendants' witness was found to be...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim succeeds; defendants ordered to pay the claimed amount and costs.

Orders

  • The defendants are ordered jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the plaintiffs the sum of R429,286.61 together with interest a tempore morae at the prescribed rate from date of demand to date of payment.
  • The defendants are ordered to pay jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved, the costs of this action on a party and party scale.