Khavhakone Construction Group (Pty) Ltd v Housing Development Agency and Another (22632/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1281 (5 December 2024)
The Court found that IPC 25 and IPC 26 were properly certified by the engineer and that the first defendant failed to pay the amounts due in accordance with the GCC. The first defendant's reliance on exhibit 1 as a valid rejection or ruling was rejected, as exhibit 1 did not constitute a payment certificate, a ruling, or a valid dissatisfaction notice under the GCC. The evidence showed that the process followed by the first defendant and its representatives did not comply with the contractual requirements for raising and adjudicating dissatisfaction. The plaintiff's termination of the contract was justified due to the first defendant's persistent failure to pay certified amounts, and the...
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1281
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Khavhakone Construction Group (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Housing Development Agency; Defendant: The Minister of Human Settlements N.O.
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 5 December 2024
- Case Number
- 22632/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Trial / Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim for payment of IPC 25 and IPC 26 succeeds. Plaintiff entitled to terminate the SLA. Costs awarded as specified.
- Judges
- Retief
- Legal Topics
- Service Level Agreement, Payment Certificate Dispute, Termination of Contract, General Conditions of Contract, Interest on Judgment Debt
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Khavhakone Construction Group (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff
Housing Development Agency
Defendant
The Minister of Human Settlements N.O.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Trial / Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of IPC 25 and IPC 26 under the Service Level Agreement.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the Service Level Agreement due to non-payment.
- 3 Whether the first defendant's defences regarding rejection and dissatisfaction of payment certificates are valid under the GCC.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that IPC 25 and IPC 26 were properly certified by the engineer and that the first defendant failed to pay the amounts due in accordance with the GCC. The first defendant's reliance on exhibit 1 as a valid rejection or ruling was rejected, as exhibit 1 did not constitute a payment certificate, a ruling, or a valid dissatisfaction notice under the GCC. The evidence showed that the process followed by the first defendant and its representatives did not comply with the contractual requirements for raising and adjudicating dissatisfaction. The plaintiff's termination of the contract was justified due to the first defendant's persistent failure to pay certified amounts, and the...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim for payment of IPC 25 and IPC 26 succeeds. Plaintiff entitled to terminate the SLA. Costs awarded as specified.
Orders
- The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R 1,246,811.53.
- The first defendant is ordered to pay interest on the sum of R 1,246,811.53 from date of judgment, calculated at the prescribed interest rate, until date of payment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment