Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Metgovis (Pty) Limited (EL257/14) [2017] ZAECGHC 134 (21 November 2017)

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Metgovis (Pty) Limited (EL257/14) [2017] ZAECGHC 134 (21 November 2017)

The court found that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the existence of a tacit agreement between the parties. Even if the finding on the tacit agreement was incorrect, the respondent would still be entitled to damages for unjust enrichment, as all elements of that cause of action were common cause. The court further held that the claim based on unjust enrichment had not become prescribed, as the respondent only acquired knowledge of the relevant facts when the applicant amended its pleadings to raise nullity based on illegality. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 134
Parties
Applicant: Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Metgovis (Pty) Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2017
Case Number
EL257/14
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
E Smith
Legal Topics
Tacit Agreement, Unjust Enrichment, Prescription, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Tacit Agreement Unjust Enrichment Prescription Leave to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality

Applicant

Metgovis (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would find that a tacit agreement was not concluded between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's alternative claim based on unjust enrichment had become prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's special plea regarding prescription should succeed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the existence of a tacit agreement between the parties. Even if the finding on the tacit agreement was incorrect, the respondent would still be entitled to damages for unjust enrichment, as all elements of that cause of action were common cause. The court further held that the claim based on unjust enrichment had not become prescribed, as the respondent only acquired knowledge of the relevant facts when the applicant amended its pleadings to raise nullity based on illegality. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.