Cilliers v Agri-Com Co-Operative Limited and Another (2126/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 264 (29 December 2020)

Cilliers v Agri-Com Co-Operative Limited and Another (2126/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 264 (29 December 2020)

The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an oral contract obliging the first defendant to pay for the baling of fodder. The evidence established that Agri-Com only undertook to pay for harvesting and input costs (diesel and rope) for the account of Davel, and any payment to the plaintiff for baling was contingent upon Davel settling his account and instructing Agri-Com to pay her from surplus funds. The plaintiff's evidence was vague, contradictory, and unsupported by documentation, and the probabilities did not support her version. The documentary and oral evidence presented by the first defendant was credible and consistent, confirming that Agri-Com did not contract to pay for...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 264
Parties
Plaintiff: Maria Elizabeth Cilliers; Defendant: Agri-Com Co-Operative Limited; Defendant: Jan Adriaan Davel
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 December 2020
Case Number
2126/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff on the Regional Court scale.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Burden of Proof, Joint Liability, Contractual Certainty, Costs Award
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Contract Burden of Proof Joint Liability Contractual Certainty Costs Award

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Elizabeth Cilliers

Plaintiff

Agri-Com Co-Operative Limited

Defendant

Jan Adriaan Davel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral contract existed between the plaintiff and the first defendant obliging the first defendant to pay for the baling of fodder.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving the terms of the alleged oral agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant was jointly liable with the second defendant for payment of services rendered by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an oral contract obliging the first defendant to pay for the baling of fodder. The evidence established that Agri-Com only undertook to pay for harvesting and input costs (diesel and rope) for the account of Davel, and any payment to the plaintiff for baling was contingent upon Davel settling his account and instructing Agri-Com to pay her from surplus funds. The plaintiff's evidence was vague, contradictory, and unsupported by documentation, and the probabilities did not support her version. The documentary and oral evidence presented by the first defendant was credible and consistent, confirming that Agri-Com did not contract to pay for...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiff on the Regional Court scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs to be costs in the cause and to be calculated on the scale as legislatively prescribed in the Regional Court.