Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development, Gauteng (CCT 185/13) [2014] ZACC 28; 2015 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2014 (12) BCLR 1397 (CC) (3 October 2014)

Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development, Gauteng (CCT 185/13) [2014] ZACC 28; 2015 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2014 (12) BCLR 1397 (CC) (3 October 2014)

The Constitutional Court held that the Department's cancellation of the completion contract, though intentional and foreseeably harmful to Country Cloud, was not wrongful in the delictual sense. The established category of intentional interference with contractual relations did not apply, as the Department did not induce iLima to breach its contract with Country Cloud, but rather cancelled its own contract with iLima. Country Cloud was not sufficiently vulnerable to risk, having alternative remedies such as a claim against iLima or its surety, Mr Lupepe, and having taken steps to protect itself contractually. The Court found that imposing delictual liability on the Department for Country...

Citation
[2014] ZACC 28
Parties
Appellant: Country Cloud Trading CC; Respondent: MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development, Gauteng
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2014
Case Number
CCT 185/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Following High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Pure Economic Loss, Wrongfulness, Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations, State Accountability, Vulnerability to Risk, Public Procurement
Delict Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Pure Economic Loss Wrongfulness Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations State Accountability Vulnerability to Risk +1 more

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

Parties

Country Cloud Trading CC

Appellant

MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development, Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Following High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department should be held delictually liable for Country Cloud's pure economic loss.
  2. 2 Whether the Department's cancellation of the completion contract was wrongful towards Country Cloud.
  3. 3 Whether intentional interference with contractual relations applies to the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the Department's cancellation of the completion contract, though intentional and foreseeably harmful to Country Cloud, was not wrongful in the delictual sense. The established category of intentional interference with contractual relations did not apply, as the Department did not induce iLima to breach its contract with Country Cloud, but rather cancelled its own contract with iLima. Country Cloud was not sufficiently vulnerable to risk, having alternative remedies such as a claim against iLima or its surety, Mr Lupepe, and having taken steps to protect itself contractually. The Court found that imposing delictual liability on the Department for Country...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.