FBS Electronics Bk v HSH Construction Africa (Pty) Ltd (4787/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 81 (24 May 2017)

FBS Electronics Bk v HSH Construction Africa (Pty) Ltd (4787/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 81 (24 May 2017)

The court found that the applicant had performed its contractual obligations and that the respondent's defences regarding defective performance and lack of training were unsupported and belated. The respondent failed to raise any genuine dispute of fact or provide credible evidence for its defences. The court held that jurisdiction was proper in the Free State High Court, as payment was to be made in Bloemfontein, and the locus solutionis was a material consideration. The matter was suitable for motion proceedings, as there was no real, genuine dispute of fact. The respondent's opposition was found to be a delaying tactic without merit. Accordingly, the court granted the relief sought by...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 81
Parties
Applicant: FBS Electronics BK; Respondent: HSH Construction Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Case Number
4787/2016
Procedural Posture
Motion Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
MH Rampai
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction, Motion Proceedings, Quantum of Claim
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Jurisdiction Motion Proceedings Quantum of Claim

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

Parties

FBS Electronics BK

Applicant

HSH Construction Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable to pay the applicant the claimed amount for work done and services rendered.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's defences regarding defective performance and lack of training are valid.
  3. 3 Whether the Free State High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had performed its contractual obligations and that the respondent's defences regarding defective performance and lack of training were unsupported and belated. The respondent failed to raise any genuine dispute of fact or provide credible evidence for its defences. The court held that jurisdiction was proper in the Free State High Court, as payment was to be made in Bloemfontein, and the locus solutionis was a material consideration. The matter was suitable for motion proceedings, as there was no real, genuine dispute of fact. The respondent's opposition was found to be a delaying tactic without merit. Accordingly, the court granted the relief sought by...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the capital sum of R213,993.67.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay interest thereon at the rate of 10.25% per annum.