Caqs Bk v Tambhura Property Investments 19 (Edms) Bpk (A364/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 944 (2 December 2014)

Caqs Bk v Tambhura Property Investments 19 (Edms) Bpk (A364/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 944 (2 December 2014)

The court found that the appellant's version was more probable and credible. The evidence demonstrated that the respondent received and accepted the appellant's proposal, including the fee structure, and issued instructions for both the managers' houses and the balance of the project. The respondent's conduct, including the instruction letter and subsequent correspondence, indicated acceptance of the appellant's terms. The respondent failed to seek clarification on fees, confirming acceptance by silence. Expert evidence established that the fees charged were reasonable and below industry standards. The respondent's evasiveness and lack of credible defence regarding invoice 1116 further...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 944
Parties
Appellant: CAQS BK; Respondent: Tambhura Property Investments 19 (Edms) Bpk
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2014
Case Number
A364/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Magistrate's Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; judgment altered in favour of the appellant for the full amount claimed.
Judges
A J H Bosman, AML Phatudi
Legal Topics
Contractual Liability, Oral and Written Agreements, Quantum of Fees, Expert Evidence, Summary Judgment, Fee Structure Dispute
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Liability Oral and Written Agreements Quantum of Fees Expert Evidence Summary Judgment Fee Structure Dispute

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAQS BK

Appellant

Tambhura Property Investments 19 (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Magistrate's Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding agreement existed between the appellant and respondent for quantity surveying services.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable for payment of invoice 1116 in addition to invoice 1115.
  3. 3 Whether the fee structure in the appellant's proposal was accepted by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's version was more probable and credible. The evidence demonstrated that the respondent received and accepted the appellant's proposal, including the fee structure, and issued instructions for both the managers' houses and the balance of the project. The respondent's conduct, including the instruction letter and subsequent correspondence, indicated acceptance of the appellant's terms. The respondent failed to seek clarification on fees, confirming acceptance by silence. Expert evidence established that the fees charged were reasonable and below industry standards. The respondent's evasiveness and lack of credible defence regarding invoice 1116 further...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; judgment altered in favour of the appellant for the full amount claimed.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the sum of R333,026.80.
  • Interest on the said amount of R333,026.80 at 15% per annum from 29 September 2009 to date of payment.