Imprefed (Pty) Ltd. v National Transport Commission (13/91) [1993] ZASCA 36; 1993 (3) SA 94 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 179 (A) (22 March 1993)

Imprefed (Pty) Ltd. v National Transport Commission (13/91) [1993] ZASCA 36; 1993 (3) SA 94 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 179 (A) (22 March 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claims for additional remuneration, loss of productivity, and overheads were not sustainable under the contract. The contract was a rate and measurement contract, and the agreed rates or contract rates governed all remuneration for work done, including variations and extra work. The appellant's attempt to claim additional compensation based on fairness, more onerous conditions, or the Engineer's recommendations was rejected, as the contract provided exclusive remedies and mechanisms for payment. The pleadings did not permit reliance on contract clauses not expressly pleaded, and the appellant failed to isolate and prove the effect of...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 36
Parties
Appellant: Imprefed (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: National Transport Commission
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 1993
Case Number
13/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division; Judgment Delivered After Hearing Cross Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal allowed with costs; absolution from the instance on all claims with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Joubert, E M Grosskopf, Kumleben, Nienaber, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Variation Orders, Remuneration Under Contract, Pleading Precision, Damages for Breach, Quantification of Claims
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Variation Orders Remuneration Under Contract Pleading Precision Damages for Breach Quantification of Claims

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imprefed (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

National Transport Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division; Judgment Delivered After Hearing Cross Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to additional remuneration under the contract for delays and extra work.
  2. 2 Whether the contract rates or agreed rates apply to work done under variation or extra work orders.
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings permit reliance on specific contract clauses not expressly pleaded.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claims for additional remuneration, loss of productivity, and overheads were not sustainable under the contract. The contract was a rate and measurement contract, and the agreed rates or contract rates governed all remuneration for work done, including variations and extra work. The appellant's attempt to claim additional compensation based on fairness, more onerous conditions, or the Engineer's recommendations was rejected, as the contract provided exclusive remedies and mechanisms for payment. The pleadings did not permit reliance on contract clauses not expressly pleaded, and the appellant failed to isolate and prove the effect of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal allowed with costs; absolution from the instance on all claims with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance on all claims with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is altered to reflect absolution from the instance on all claims.