Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs (Edms) Bpk v Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens, Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens v Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs (Edms) Bpk (674/92, 676/92) [2000] ZASCA 7; 2000 (3) SA 339 (SCA); [2000] 2 All SA 72 (A) (23 March 2000)

Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs (Edms) Bpk v Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens, Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens v Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs (Edms) Bpk (674/92, 676/92) [2000] ZASCA 7; 2000 (3) SA 339 (SCA); [2000] 2 All SA 72 (A) (23 March 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contractor's claims for damages for delay and disruption (claims 1 and 2) did not disclose a valid cause of action. The contract expressly provided for extensions of time and price adjustments as the exclusive remedies for delay, thereby excluding additional damages. The alleged breaches by the employer, architect, and engineer were not actionable as the pleadings failed to allege any demand for cooperation or stipulation of time for performance, which is required for mora creditoris. Regarding the job work claim (claim 3), the court found that the contract did not provide for divisible claims for separate segments of work. Payment for job work...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 7
Parties
Appellant: Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens; Appellant: Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens; Respondent: Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs Ovs (Edms) Bpk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2000
Case Number
674/92, 676/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Provincial Division on Points in Limine and Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs, with costs of preparation of the appeal record shared equally.
Judges
Nienaber, Hefer, Harms, Marais, Mpati
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Mora Creditoris, Prescription, Contractual Remedies, Delay and Disruption, Specific Performance
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Mora Creditoris Prescription Contractual Remedies Delay and Disruption Specific Performance

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs (Edms) Bpk

Appellant

Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens

Respondent

Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens

Appellant

Martin Harris & Seuns Ovs Ovs (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Free State Provincial Division on Points in Limine and Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for damages for breach of contract in claims 1 and 2.
  2. 2 Whether the delays and disruptions attributed to the architect and engineer constituted actionable breaches under the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the claim for payment for 'karwei-werk' (job work) had prescribed under the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contractor's claims for damages for delay and disruption (claims 1 and 2) did not disclose a valid cause of action. The contract expressly provided for extensions of time and price adjustments as the exclusive remedies for delay, thereby excluding additional damages. The alleged breaches by the employer, architect, and engineer were not actionable as the pleadings failed to allege any demand for cooperation or stipulation of time for performance, which is required for mora creditoris. Regarding the job work claim (claim 3), the court found that the contract did not provide for divisible claims for separate segments of work. Payment for job work...

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs, with costs of preparation of the appeal record shared equally.

Orders

  • In case number 674/92, the appellant's (contractor's) appeal is dismissed.
  • In case number 676/92, the appellant's (employer's) appeal is dismissed.