Cirano Investments 307 (Pty) Ltd v Execujet Aviation (Pty) Ltd (10831/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 182 (22 March 2014)

Cirano Investments 307 (Pty) Ltd v Execujet Aviation (Pty) Ltd (10831/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 182 (22 March 2014)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim, formulated as rental value less expenses saved, constitutes a claim for general damages and not for loss of profit. Clause 11.4 of the lease agreement excludes claims for special damages and loss of profit, but does not preclude claims for general damages. The deduction of expenses as mitigation does not transform the claim into one for loss of profit. The plaintiff is entitled to claim general damages, provided it has mitigated its loss, and the defendant's argument to the contrary is without merit. The court declared that the plaintiff's claim is not precluded by clause 11.4 and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the hearing.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 182
Parties
Plaintiff: Cirano Investments 307 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Execujet Aviation (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2014
Case Number
10831/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Separation of Issues; Determination of Preliminary Point
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages is not precluded by clause 11.4 of the lease agreement.
Judges
Wepener
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, General Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Exclusion of Special Damages
Commercial and Corporate Breach of Contract General Damages Mitigation of Loss Exclusion of Special Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cirano Investments 307 (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Execujet Aviation (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Separation of Issues; Determination of Preliminary Point

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 11.4 of the written lease agreement precludes the plaintiff's claim for damages.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim constitutes a prohibited claim for loss of profit or an allowable claim for general damages.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's deduction of expenses amounts to a claim for loss of profit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim, formulated as rental value less expenses saved, constitutes a claim for general damages and not for loss of profit. Clause 11.4 of the lease agreement excludes claims for special damages and loss of profit, but does not preclude claims for general damages. The deduction of expenses as mitigation does not transform the claim into one for loss of profit. The plaintiff is entitled to claim general damages, provided it has mitigated its loss, and the defendant's argument to the contrary is without merit. The court declared that the plaintiff's claim is not precluded by clause 11.4 and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the hearing.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages is not precluded by clause 11.4 of the lease agreement.

Orders

  • It is declared that the plaintiff’s claim for damages is not precluded by the provisions of clause 11.4 of the written lease agreement.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of this hearing.