Casper Jacobs Konstruksie CC v Minister of Police (28360/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 613 (24 August 2022)

Casper Jacobs Konstruksie CC v Minister of Police (28360/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 613 (24 August 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff could not reasonably have been aware of the potential delay until September 2015, when the defendant's failure to appoint a nominated subcontractor for the erection of the water tank became apparent. The plaintiff provided notice within the required 20 working days, satisfying the contractual notice condition. The defendant failed to provide any factual or logical basis for its assertion that the plaintiff ought to have known of the delay at an earlier stage. The methodology for calculating compensation, as agreed by the parties, was applied without deviation. The plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time and monetary compensation for the period of...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 613
Parties
Plaintiff: Casper Jacobs Konstruksie CC; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2022
Case Number
28360/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for extension of time and monetary compensation is granted.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Extension of Time, Contractual Notice Requirements, Liquidated Damages, Penalty Clauses
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Extension of Time Contractual Notice Requirements Liquidated Damages Penalty Clauses

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

Parties

Casper Jacobs Konstruksie CC

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff complied with the contractual notice condition for claiming an extension of time due to delay.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in completion was caused by the defendant's failure to nominate a subcontractor for the erection of the water tank.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to monetary compensation for the period of delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff could not reasonably have been aware of the potential delay until September 2015, when the defendant's failure to appoint a nominated subcontractor for the erection of the water tank became apparent. The plaintiff provided notice within the required 20 working days, satisfying the contractual notice condition. The defendant failed to provide any factual or logical basis for its assertion that the plaintiff ought to have known of the delay at an earlier stage. The methodology for calculating compensation, as agreed by the parties, was applied without deviation. The plaintiff is entitled to an extension of time and monetary compensation for the period of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for extension of time and monetary compensation is granted.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to grant the plaintiff an extension of time in respect of Claim no 8 of 322 days for the period 9 November 2016 to 19 April 2017 as envisaged in the written agreement entered into between the parties on 17 September 2014.
  • Payment of the amount of R 4 760 700.79 plus VAT.