F.J. Joubert and Seuns (Pty) Ltd v Pavebuilt CC (A99/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 12 (20 May 2020)

F.J. Joubert and Seuns (Pty) Ltd v Pavebuilt CC (A99/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 12 (20 May 2020)

The court found that Pavebuilt CC complied with all contractual terms and constructed the wall in a professional and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the engineer's design specifications. The evidence established that the area where cracks appeared was the responsibility of Joubert, who provided and compacted the backfill material. The expert evidence of Mr Nicholson was preferred over that of Mr Ferraris, whose testimony was found to be contradictory and biased. The DCP test relied upon by Joubert was inappropriate for measuring soil density, and independent laboratory tests confirmed adequate compaction by Pavebuilt. The damage to the wall was attributed to subsequent works by...

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMBHC 12
Parties
Appellant: F.J. Joubert and Seuns (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Pavebuilt CC
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Case Number
A99/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Legodi, Brauckmann, Roelofse
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Expert Evidence, Breach of Contract, Counterclaim, Professional Workmanship
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Expert Evidence Breach of Contract Counterclaim Professional Workmanship

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F.J. Joubert and Seuns (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Pavebuilt CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pavebuilt CC complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement for construction of the retaining wall.
  2. 2 Whether Pavebuilt CC constructed the wall in a skilled and professional manner and in accordance with the design specifications.
  3. 3 Whether Joubert was entitled to withhold payment and succeed in its counterclaim for reconstruction costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Pavebuilt CC complied with all contractual terms and constructed the wall in a professional and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the engineer's design specifications. The evidence established that the area where cracks appeared was the responsibility of Joubert, who provided and compacted the backfill material. The expert evidence of Mr Nicholson was preferred over that of Mr Ferraris, whose testimony was found to be contradictory and biased. The DCP test relied upon by Joubert was inappropriate for measuring soil density, and independent laboratory tests confirmed adequate compaction by Pavebuilt. The damage to the wall was attributed to subsequent works by...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.