Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry (379/2010) [2011] ZASCA 17 (14 March 2011)

Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry (379/2010) [2011] ZASCA 17 (14 March 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claims for additional payment under the building contract became due when written notice was given to refer the unresolved matters to court, following the dispute review board's recommendation. This interpretation was based on the contract's dispute resolution mechanism and the Prescription Act. The court found that the claims were ripe and complete at the time the notices were given, and prescription commenced from that point. The appellant's argument that the claims were merely estimates and not immediately due was rejected. The court affirmed the reasoning of the lower court and concluded that the claims had prescribed.

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 17
Parties
Appellant: Group Five Construction (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2011
Case Number
379/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Streicher, Brand, Shongwe, Theron
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Building Contracts, Debt Due, Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Act Building Contracts Debt Due Dispute Resolution Mechanism

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Group Five Construction (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claims for additional payment under the building contract became 'due' upon giving written notice after the dispute review board's recommendation or only after completion of the works.
  2. 2 Whether the claims had prescribed in terms of section 12(1) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claims for additional payment under the building contract became due when written notice was given to refer the unresolved matters to court, following the dispute review board's recommendation. This interpretation was based on the contract's dispute resolution mechanism and the Prescription Act. The court found that the claims were ripe and complete at the time the notices were given, and prescription commenced from that point. The appellant's argument that the claims were merely estimates and not immediately due was rejected. The court affirmed the reasoning of the lower court and concluded that the claims had prescribed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs including costs of two counsel.