Framatome v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (43535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 233 (30 September 2020)

Framatome v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (43535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 233 (30 September 2020)

The court found that while the adjudicator's decision 7 was within his jurisdiction and covered by the referral, decision 11 was not. The adjudicator in decision 11 answered the wrong question, as the dispute referred was about the correctness of the project manager's assessment, not whether the assessment was made timeously. The adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by deeming the applicant's quotation accepted and thereby varying the payment terms of the contract, which he was not empowered to do. As a result, decision 11 is not binding and unenforceable. The relief sought by the applicant, which depends on the enforceability of decision 11, cannot be granted. The application is...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 233
Parties
Applicant: Framatome; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Case Number
43535/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Declaratory and Consequential Relief Enforcing Adjudicator's Decision Under Construction Contract
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
P Coppin
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Adjudicator Decision, Construction Contracts, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Specific Performance, Contractual Variation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Enforcement of Adjudicator Decision Construction Contracts Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Specific Performance Contractual Variation

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Framatome

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Declaratory and Consequential Relief Enforcing Adjudicator's Decision Under Construction Contract

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction in making decision 11.
  2. 2 Whether the court may enforce the adjudicator's decision as a contractual obligation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's quotation constituted a valid quotation under the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the adjudicator's decision 7 was within his jurisdiction and covered by the referral, decision 11 was not. The adjudicator in decision 11 answered the wrong question, as the dispute referred was about the correctness of the project manager's assessment, not whether the assessment was made timeously. The adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by deeming the applicant's quotation accepted and thereby varying the payment terms of the contract, which he was not empowered to do. As a result, decision 11 is not binding and unenforceable. The relief sought by the applicant, which depends on the enforceability of decision 11, cannot be granted. The application is...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.