Mdazane and Another v Nene and Another (EL 799/2020) [2024] ZAECELLC 42 (29 October 2024)

Mdazane and Another v Nene and Another (EL 799/2020) [2024] ZAECELLC 42 (29 October 2024)

The court found that no partnership agreement existed between the plaintiffs and defendants regarding the surgical mask tender. The evidence, including cross-examination and testimony from Ms Exford and Mr Nene, contradicted the plaintiffs’ claim of a partnership. The court accepted that a verbal agreement existed for the sale of masks at R6.50 each, totalling R650,000, but rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for a higher amount due to lack of credible evidence regarding the purchase price and profit-sharing. The claim for breach of contract in the amount of R421,000 was dismissed. The first defendant was not found personally liable, as the transaction was conducted through the second...

Citation
[2024] ZAECELLC 42
Parties
Plaintiff: Mawonga Mdazane; Plaintiff: Mdazane Investments (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Phumlani Nene; Defendant: Nutigent (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2024
Case Number
EL 799/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs partially succeed: oral agreement cancelled; judgment for R650,000 as tendered; claim for R421,000 dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Cengani-Mbakaza
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Partnership Dispute, Breach of Contract, Tender Procurement, Absolution From Instance
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Contract Partnership Dispute Breach of Contract Tender Procurement Absolution From Instance

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mawonga Mdazane

Plaintiff

Mdazane Investments (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Phumlani Nene

Defendant

Nutigent (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership agreement existed between the plaintiffs and defendants regarding the surgical mask tender.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached a contractual obligation to pay the plaintiffs R1,071,500.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment beyond the R650,000 tendered by the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no partnership agreement existed between the plaintiffs and defendants regarding the surgical mask tender. The evidence, including cross-examination and testimony from Ms Exford and Mr Nene, contradicted the plaintiffs’ claim of a partnership. The court accepted that a verbal agreement existed for the sale of masks at R6.50 each, totalling R650,000, but rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for a higher amount due to lack of credible evidence regarding the purchase price and profit-sharing. The claim for breach of contract in the amount of R421,000 was dismissed. The first defendant was not found personally liable, as the transaction was conducted through the second...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs partially succeed: oral agreement cancelled; judgment for R650,000 as tendered; claim for R421,000 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The cancellation of the oral agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants entered into on or about April 2020 is confirmed.
  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of R650,000 as tendered by the defendants, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved.