DV8 Consulting CC v Airports Company of South Africa SOC Ltd (2016/17680) [2019] ZAGPPHC 969 (18 December 2019)

DV8 Consulting CC v Airports Company of South Africa SOC Ltd (2016/17680) [2019] ZAGPPHC 969 (18 December 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving the existence of a second oral agreement for the redevelopment of the defendant's website. The evidence established that the work was performed, the defendant benefited from the new website, and the amount claimed was fair and reasonable. The defendant's witness was found unreliable, with numerous concessions and inconsistencies, while the plaintiff's witness was credible and consistent. The court accepted the expert evidence on the value of the work, which was uncontested. Even if the oral agreement were not enforceable, the defendant was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff's work. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 969
Parties
Plaintiff: DV8 Consulting CC; Defendant: Airports Company of South Africa SOC Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Case Number
2016/17680
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / First Instance
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim upheld; judgment for the plaintiff.
Judges
Mokose
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Unjust Enrichment, Repudiation, Damages, Onus of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Contracts Unjust Enrichment Repudiation Damages Onus of Proof

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

Parties

DV8 Consulting CC

Plaintiff

Airports Company of South Africa SOC Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus to prove the existence and terms of a second oral agreement for website redevelopment.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant repudiated the oral agreement and is liable for damages.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff's work if no enforceable oral agreement existed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving the existence of a second oral agreement for the redevelopment of the defendant's website. The evidence established that the work was performed, the defendant benefited from the new website, and the amount claimed was fair and reasonable. The defendant's witness was found unreliable, with numerous concessions and inconsistencies, while the plaintiff's witness was credible and consistent. The court accepted the expert evidence on the value of the work, which was uncontested. Even if the oral agreement were not enforceable, the defendant was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff's work. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim upheld; judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Payment of the sum of R2 094 750,00 inclusive of VAT.
  • Interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 10% per annum a tempore morae to the date of payment.