Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Limited and Another v Bentel Associates International (Pty) Ltd Limited (147/2015) [2017] ZASCA 135 (29 September 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellants’ delay in filing the appeal record was excessive and unexplained, and that condonation should not be granted. The contract between Bentel and the trust was not validly delegated to the company, as required by the written terms of the architect’s contract, and the mere submission of invoices to the company did not amount to a contractual variation. The trial court erred in its calculation of the amount owed to Bentel and in applying the incorrect rate and date for interest. The trust remained the party liable to Bentel for fees and disbursements, and Bentel was entitled to costs, including those of two counsel. The cross appeal was...
- Citation
- [2017] ZASCA 135
- Parties
- Appellant: Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Limited; Appellant: The Trustees of the N Georgiou Trust; Respondent: Bentel Associates International (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 September 2017
- Case Number
- 147/2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein
- Outcome
- Application for condonation and reinstatement of appeal dismissed; cross appeal upheld; trial court order set aside and replaced.
- Judges
- Lewis, Seriti, Petse, Plasket, Schippers
- Legal Topics
- Contractual Delegation, Condonation, Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, Locus Standi, Costs Award
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Limited
Appellant
The Trustees of the N Georgiou Trust
Appellant
Bentel Associates International (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the appeal record and reinstatement of the appeal.
- 2 Whether the company was substituted for the trust as a party to the architect’s contract with Bentel.
- 3 Whether the trial court miscalculated the amount owed to Bentel for fees and disbursements.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellants’ delay in filing the appeal record was excessive and unexplained, and that condonation should not be granted. The contract between Bentel and the trust was not validly delegated to the company, as required by the written terms of the architect’s contract, and the mere submission of invoices to the company did not amount to a contractual variation. The trial court erred in its calculation of the amount owed to Bentel and in applying the incorrect rate and date for interest. The trust remained the party liable to Bentel for fees and disbursements, and Bentel was entitled to costs, including those of two counsel. The cross appeal was...
Court Disposition
Application for condonation and reinstatement of appeal dismissed; cross appeal upheld; trial court order set aside and replaced.
Orders
- The appellants’ application for condonation in respect of the late filing of the record and for the reinstatement of their appeal is dismissed with the costs of two counsel.
- The cross appeal is upheld with the costs of two counsel.
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