Du Preez v Tornel Props (Pty) Ltd (20714/14) [2015] ZASCA 134 (29 September 2015)

Du Preez v Tornel Props (Pty) Ltd (20714/14) [2015] ZASCA 134 (29 September 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contractor was justified in withholding performance due to the employer's refusal to make progress payments as required by the contract. The employer's stance that payment was only due upon completion was contrary to the express terms. The subsequent cancellation by the employer was objectively a repudiation, which the contractor was entitled to accept and cancel the contract. The quantum of damages awarded by the court a quo was not proved by admissible evidence, as the Neobuild quotation was not supported by expert testimony. The parties agreed that R104,817 was a justifiable amount for damages, and the court awarded this sum. Costs were awarded...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 134
Parties
Appellant: Lorraine Du Preez; Respondent: Tornel Props (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2015
Case Number
20714/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal partly upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.
Judges
Shongwe, Saldulker, Swain, Mbha, Baartman
Legal Topics
Building Contract, Repudiation, Reciprocal Obligations, Quantum of Damages, Progress Payments
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Building Contract Repudiation Reciprocal Obligations Quantum of Damages Progress Payments

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorraine Du Preez

Appellant

Tornel Props (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the contractor justified in withholding performance under the building contract?
  2. 2 Did the conduct of the employer constitute repudiation entitling cancellation?
  3. 3 Was the quantum of damages proved by admissible evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contractor was justified in withholding performance due to the employer's refusal to make progress payments as required by the contract. The employer's stance that payment was only due upon completion was contrary to the express terms. The subsequent cancellation by the employer was objectively a repudiation, which the contractor was entitled to accept and cancel the contract. The quantum of damages awarded by the court a quo was not proved by admissible evidence, as the Neobuild quotation was not supported by expert testimony. The parties agreed that R104,817 was a justifiable amount for damages, and the court awarded this sum. Costs were awarded...

Court Disposition

Appeal partly upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R104,817.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay interest thereon from 1 June 2007 to date of final payment at the rate of 15.5% per annum.