Maykent (Pty) Ltd v Trackstar Trading 20 (Pty) Ltd (1036/2013) [2015] ZASCA 14 (17 March 2015)

Maykent (Pty) Ltd v Trackstar Trading 20 (Pty) Ltd (1036/2013) [2015] ZASCA 14 (17 March 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract between Maykent and Trackstar was not governed strictly by the JBCC 2000 Principal Building Agreement, as the parties did not complete the contract variables or follow its procedures. The requirement for a certificate of completion before a final payment certificate was not applicable. Trackstar was entitled to payment upon submission of its final account, and Maykent was aware of its liability from that date. The summons was not premature. The counterclaim for damages was dismissed due to lack of evidence. Interest was correctly awarded from the date of summons, as Maykent had knowledge of the debt from the outset.

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 14
Parties
Appellant: Maykent (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Trackstar Trading 20 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Case Number
1036/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lewis, Maya, Bosielo, Majiedt, Pillay
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Standard Form Contracts, Final Payment Certificate, Interest on Debt
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Standard Form Contracts Final Payment Certificate Interest on Debt

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

Parties

Maykent (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Trackstar Trading 20 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract required the principal agent to issue a certificate of completion before a final payment certificate could be issued.
  2. 2 Whether the summons for payment was premature in the absence of a certificate of completion.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was liable to pay interest from the date of summons.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract between Maykent and Trackstar was not governed strictly by the JBCC 2000 Principal Building Agreement, as the parties did not complete the contract variables or follow its procedures. The requirement for a certificate of completion before a final payment certificate was not applicable. Trackstar was entitled to payment upon submission of its final account, and Maykent was aware of its liability from that date. The summons was not premature. The counterclaim for damages was dismissed due to lack of evidence. Interest was correctly awarded from the date of summons, as Maykent had knowledge of the debt from the outset.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Interest at the prescribed rate of 15.5% is payable from the date of summons to the date of payment.