Euro Blitz 21 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Secena Aircraft Investments CC (102/2014) [2015] ZASCA 21 (19 March 2015)

Euro Blitz 21 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Secena Aircraft Investments CC (102/2014) [2015] ZASCA 21 (19 March 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'calculated daily' in the magistrate's court order refers only to the method of calculating interest on the capital amount and does not imply that interest is to be compounded daily. The court distinguished between the calculation of interest and the capitalisation or compounding of interest, finding that the latter requires express agreement or established custom, neither of which was present in this case. The respondent's contention that 'calculated daily' meant 'compounded daily' was rejected as legally untenable. The court further noted that the in duplum rule was conceded in the court a quo and was not considered on appeal....

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 21
Parties
Appellant: Euro Blitz 21 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Ivo Branco; Respondent: Secena Aircraft Investments CC
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Case Number
102/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; order of the South Gauteng High Court set aside and replaced.
Judges
Maya, Majiedt, Pillay, Mbha, Mayat
Legal Topics
Interest on Judgments, Compound Interest, Contractual Interpretation, In Duplum Rule
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Interest on Judgments Compound Interest Contractual Interpretation In Duplum Rule

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Euro Blitz 21 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Ivo Branco

Appellant

Secena Aircraft Investments CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'calculated daily' in the magistrate's court order implies compound or simple interest.
  2. 2 Whether compound interest is claimable in the absence of express agreement or established custom.
  3. 3 Whether the in duplum rule applies to the interest accrued in this matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'calculated daily' in the magistrate's court order refers only to the method of calculating interest on the capital amount and does not imply that interest is to be compounded daily. The court distinguished between the calculation of interest and the capitalisation or compounding of interest, finding that the latter requires express agreement or established custom, neither of which was present in this case. The respondent's contention that 'calculated daily' meant 'compounded daily' was rejected as legally untenable. The court further noted that the in duplum rule was conceded in the court a quo and was not considered on appeal....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; order of the South Gauteng High Court set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, is set aside and replaced by the following order: (a) Having regard to the judgment of the additional Magistrate E de Klerk dated 19 February 2009 under case number 2795/2006 in the Germiston Magistrate's Court, it is declared that: (i) Interest which accrues...