LTA Construction Ltd. v Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs (180/92) [1993] ZASCA 149; 1994 (1) SA 153 (AD); (29 September 1993)

LTA Construction Ltd. v Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs (180/92) [1993] ZASCA 149; 1994 (1) SA 153 (AD); (29 September 1993)

The court held that clause 3(iii) of the contract does not entitle the appellant to additional remuneration for time-related costs resulting from delays caused by variation orders unless those items themselves are varied by specific order. Extensions of time under clause 17(iii) are not variations within the meaning of clause 3(iii) and do not justify additional payment for time-related items. Compensation for increased time-related costs is governed by clause 49 of Bill No 1, which had already been applied. The appellant's interpretation would result in double payment, which is not supported by the contract language or the parties' intentions. The application for condonation was refused...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 149
Parties
Appellant: LTA Construction Limited; Respondent: Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 1993
Case Number
180/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Claim and Application for Condonation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for condonation refused.
Judges
Nestadt, Hoexter, Milne, Nicholas, Kriegler
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Variation Orders, Time Related Costs, Contractual Interpretation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Variation Orders Time Related Costs Contractual Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LTA Construction Limited

Appellant

Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Claim and Application for Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to additional remuneration for time-related costs resulting from delays caused by variation orders.
  2. 2 Whether clause 3(iii) of the contract allows for valuation of time-related items due to extensions of time.
  3. 3 Whether extensions of time under clause 17(iii) constitute a variation of Bill No 1 for the purposes of clause 3(iii).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that clause 3(iii) of the contract does not entitle the appellant to additional remuneration for time-related costs resulting from delays caused by variation orders unless those items themselves are varied by specific order. Extensions of time under clause 17(iii) are not variations within the meaning of clause 3(iii) and do not justify additional payment for time-related items. Compensation for increased time-related costs is governed by clause 49 of Bill No 1, which had already been applied. The appellant's interpretation would result in double payment, which is not supported by the contract language or the parties' intentions. The application for condonation was refused...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for condonation refused.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of appeal.