Billion Group (Pty) Ltd v Gobile (EL759/08, ECD 3059/08) [2013] ZAECELLC 9 (2 October 2013)

Billion Group (Pty) Ltd v Gobile (EL759/08, ECD 3059/08) [2013] ZAECELLC 9 (2 October 2013)

The court found that the building agreement was valid and binding, as the parties' common intention was to build in accordance with the plan marked 'Option 5 [?????? m²]', not 'Plan 8' as mistakenly referenced. The statutory requirements of section 13(1) of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act were substantively complied with, as the approved municipal plan existed and specifications were attached or available. Section 13(3) expressly provides that failure to comply with subsections (a) and (c) does not render the agreement invalid. The reference to 150 m² in the agreement was interpreted as relating to the gross building area, consistent with industry standards and the parties'...

Citation
[2013] ZAECELLC 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Billion Group (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Sibongile Gobile
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2013
Case Number
EL759/08, ECD 3059/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Separated Issues Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on all three separated issues; agreement declared valid and binding and rectified as prayed.
Judges
Hartle
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act, Building Agreement Formalities, Contractual Consensus, Statutory Compliance, Interpretation of Contract Terms
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Rectification of Contract Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act Building Agreement Formalities Contractual Consensus Statutory Compliance Interpretation of Contract Terms

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

Parties

Billion Group (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Sibongile Gobile

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Separated Issues Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building agreement annexure 'A' constitutes a valid and binding contract between the parties, or whether the defendant is estopped from denying consensus.
  2. 2 Whether the building agreement stands to be rectified as alleged by either party.
  3. 3 What is the legal effect of the measurement of 150 m² as reflected in clause 1 of the building agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the building agreement was valid and binding, as the parties' common intention was to build in accordance with the plan marked 'Option 5 [?????? m²]', not 'Plan 8' as mistakenly referenced. The statutory requirements of section 13(1) of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act were substantively complied with, as the approved municipal plan existed and specifications were attached or available. Section 13(3) expressly provides that failure to comply with subsections (a) and (c) does not render the agreement invalid. The reference to 150 m² in the agreement was interpreted as relating to the gross building area, consistent with industry standards and the parties'...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on all three separated issues; agreement declared valid and binding and rectified as prayed.

Orders

  • It is declared that annexure 'A' to the plaintiff's particulars of claim constitutes a valid and binding agreement capable of being rectified.
  • Paragraph 1 of annexure 'A' is rectified to read: 'The builder will erect for the Owner a building in accordance with the plans and specifications hereto marked plan "Option 5 [?????? m²]" and in the construction of the building situated on Erf 5727 (No. 16) (measuring 150m²), will comply with the said detailed...