Louhan Civil (Pty) Ltd / High Point JV v ACL Group (Pty) Ltd (2152/2013) [2019] ZAFSHC 103 (27 June 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] ZAFSHC 103
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- V.M. Morobane
- Case number
- 2152/2013
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- V.M. Morobane
- Case number
- 2152/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence regarding the defective work and the costs incurred to remedy the defects was credible, uncontroverted, and supported by expert testimony. The quantum claimed was justified by market norms and industry standards. As the defendant failed to appear and did not challenge the evidence, the court accepted the plaintiff's version and awarded damages as claimed. The plaintiff established its entitlement to damages arising from the breach of contract, and the quantum was proven on a balance of probabilities.
Court disposition
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of damages, interest, and costs.
Orders
- Judgment is granted against the defendant for payment of the amount of R976 545.51.
- Interest on the amount of R976 545.51 at the rate of 15.5% per annum a tempore morae.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Louhan Civil (Pty) Ltd / High Point JV
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv. MC LouwACL Group (Pty) Ltd
Defendant Counsel: BH MelletAmounts and remedies
- Damages Awarded: ZAR 976,545.51
- Interest Rate Per Annum: ZAR 15.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Action / Quantum Determination After Judgment on Merits
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages arising from the defendant's breach of contract.
- 02
Whether the quantum of damages claimed by the plaintiff is justified and proven.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to perform the horizontal drilling for the sewer main connection in accordance with the agreement, resulting in defective work that required extensive repairs and replacement. The plaintiff appointed an alternative contractor to remedy the defects and incurred costs calculated according to market norms and industry standards. The plaintiff presented expert evidence confirming the necessity and reasonableness of the costs incurred.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not appear at trial and did not present any evidence or argument to contest the plaintiff's claim or the quantum of damages.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Kudu Granite Operations (Pty) Ltd v Caterna Ltd 2003 (5) SA 193 (SCA)
A party who suffers loss due to another's breach of contract is entitled to claim damages proven to have resulted from the breach.
- 02
Holmdene Brickworks (Pty) Ltd v Roberts Construction Co Ltd 1977 (3) SA 670 (A)
Damages must be proven on a balance of probabilities and must be reasonable and necessary to remedy the breach.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence regarding the defective work and the costs incurred to remedy the defects was credible, uncontroverted, and supported by expert testimony. The quantum claimed was justified by market norms and industry standards. As the defendant failed to appear and did not challenge the evidence, the court accepted the plaintiff's version and awarded damages as claimed. The plaintiff established its entitlement to damages arising from the breach of contract, and the quantum was proven on a balance of probabilities.
Obiter and limits
- The risks associated with horizontal drilling in variable formations require specialised expertise, and failure to employ such expertise may result in defective work.
- Where only one party's evidence is before the court and is credible and unchallenged, the court is entitled to accept it in determining quantum.
Court disposition
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of damages, interest, and costs.
- Judgment is granted against the defendant for payment of the amount of R976 545.51.
- Interest on the amount of R976 545.51 at the rate of 15.5% per annum a tempore morae.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the costs.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case No: 2152/2013
In the matter between:
LOUHAN CIVIL (PTY) LTD / HIGH POINT JV
Plaintiff
and
ACL GROUP (PTY) LTD
Defendant
[Registration Number 2007/008763/07]
CORAM: MOROBANE, AJ
JUDGMENT: MOROBANE,
AJ
HEARD ON: 04 JUNE 2019
DELIVERED ON: 27 JUNE 2019
[1] In these action proceedings the plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant arising from a breach of contract. The dispute relates to a disagreement between the parties about the execution of a subcontract for the horizontal drilling of a tunnel under the Bloemfontein – Thaba Nchu Road.
[2] The parties concluded a partly written and partly oral agreement originally contained in a Purchase Order delivered by the plaintiff
to the defendant for the amount of R1 139 606.70 (the “Agreement”). Subsequently, the purchase order was amended for the amount R488 182.20 which constituted the final written part of the agreement between the parties. In terms of the agreement, the defendant would do a horizontal drilling for a sewer main connection to connect the Grassland and Bloemspruit areas in Bloemfontein. The defendant’s services were defective as they could not be executed for purposes for which the services were to be delivered without extensive repairs and replacement.
[3] Judgment was delivered by my sister Murray, AJ on 17 December 2015 in which the plaintiff’s claim succeeded on the merits. At this stage, the only issue for a determination is the quantum.
[4] On 1 April 2019, the defendant’s attorneys of record filed their notice of withdrawal and also furnished the defendant’s last known address. The matter was set down, but there was no appearance of the defendant during the trial. Two witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff and their testimony is summarised below.
[5] The first witness, Johannes Hendriks Ceronio, is the plaintiff’s chief executive officer and was personally involved in the project. He testified that the defendant was called upon to rectify the defective work, but failed to do so. The maximum defect was 500 mm below the sewer course with no natural pressure or fall. In order to minimise the company’s liability, plaintiff appointed an alternative contractor to remedy the defects. After the latter were located, the rest of the pipeline was cut into pieces and a ‘regrout’ was done. He further testified that the costs incurred by the plaintiff were computed on the market norms and could not have been prepared for less.
[6] Casper Nicolaas Kempff, a professional engineer, has over 30 years of experience in the field and an engineering expert. He confirmed his report and highlighted his summaries. He testified that the level of the sewer line was not straight and had to be re- aligned; it was most appropriate to remedy the work at the time; the prices were set by the government and the sector; he reviewed the costs and found them to be in accordance with the industry norms; the costs were justified and the prices reasonable; and the total price is fair as it could not have been done for less. He testified further that horizontal drilling is risky where the formation differs and it could not be done next to the defect, unless you have a specialised services to do so.
[7] The witnesses were honest and truthful during their testimony. I have no reason to doubt them and I accept their testimony.
[8] Only the plaintiff’s evidence is before me to consider and make a determination of the quantum. It is also uncontroverted and I have no reason to reject the same. In the light thereof, the plaintiff has made out a case for judgment on the quantum as claimed.
[9] In the premise the following order is made:
1. Judgment is granted against the defendant for payment of the amount of R976 545.51.
2. Interest on the amount of R976 545.51at the rate of 15.5% per annum a tempore morae.
3. The defendant to pay the costs.
V.M. MOROBANE, AJ
On behalf of the plaintiff: Adv. MC Louw
Instructed by:
Azar & Havenga Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the defendant: BH Mellet (Director)
ACL Group (Pty) Ltd
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.