Mettle Development Finance One (Pty) Ltd v Calgro M3 Developments (Pty) Ltd (A5005/2014, 40945/2011) [2015] ZAGPJHC 161 (6 July 2015)

Mettle Development Finance One (Pty) Ltd v Calgro M3 Developments (Pty) Ltd (A5005/2014, 40945/2011) [2015] ZAGPJHC 161 (6 July 2015)

The court held that the debt became due once the trigger event occurred, namely, when it became clear that the agreements contemplated in the contract would not be concluded. The contractual requirement for demand did not postpone the running of prescription, as the right to claim payment accrued upon the occurrence of the trigger event, not upon demand. The notice of demand was not a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right of action. Prescription commenced to run by no later than 26 March 2008, and the claim had prescribed before summons was served in October 2011. The respondent's action should have been dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 161
Parties
Appellant: Mettle Development Finance One (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Calgro M3 Developments (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2015
Case Number
A5005/2014, 40945/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
C.G. Lamont, T.M. Masipa, M.P. Tsoka
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Cause of Action, Demand as Trigger, Contractual Debt, Commencement of Prescription
Civil Procedure Prescription Act Cause of Action Demand as Trigger Contractual Debt Commencement of Prescription

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mettle Development Finance One (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Calgro M3 Developments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the contractual requirement of demand delay the commencement of prescription for the plaintiff's claim?
  2. 2 Was the plaintiff's cause of action complete before demand was made?
  3. 3 Did the claim prescribe before summons was served?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the debt became due once the trigger event occurred, namely, when it became clear that the agreements contemplated in the contract would not be concluded. The contractual requirement for demand did not postpone the running of prescription, as the right to claim payment accrued upon the occurrence of the trigger event, not upon demand. The notice of demand was not a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right of action. Prescription commenced to run by no later than 26 March 2008, and the claim had prescribed before summons was served in October 2011. The respondent's action should have been dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs consequent upon the appeal.