Mia v Verimark Holdings (Pty) Ltd (522/08) [2009] ZASCA 99; [2010] 1 All SA 280 (SCA) (18 September 2009)

Mia v Verimark Holdings (Pty) Ltd (522/08) [2009] ZASCA 99; [2010] 1 All SA 280 (SCA) (18 September 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Verimark failed to prove its entitlement to the damages claimed. The damages sought did not flow naturally from the non-fulfilment of the suspensive condition, nor were they recoverable as special damages, as there was no evidence that Mia was aware of Verimark's plans to relocate or reduce costs at the time of contracting. The only damages recoverable were the costs incurred in drafting, negotiating, and signing the agreement, as expressly provided for in clause 7.3. The appeal was upheld, and the order of the court a quo was altered to grant judgment for the plaintiff on claim 1 only, with claim 2 dismissed.

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 99
Parties
Appellant: Sayed Hoosen Mia; Respondent: Verimark Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
Case Number
522/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Johannesburg High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. Judgment for the plaintiff on claim 1; claim 2 dismissed.
Judges
Streicher, Mlambo, Snyders, Griesel, Wallis
Legal Topics
Suspensive Condition, Damages for Nonfulfilment, Contractual Interpretation, Special Damages, Sale of Immovable Property
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Suspensive Condition Damages for Nonfulfilment Contractual Interpretation Special Damages Sale of Immovable Property

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sayed Hoosen Mia

Appellant

Verimark Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Johannesburg High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved a claim for damages as contemplated in the agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to provide a guarantee constituted a breach of contract or merely non-fulfilment of a suspensive condition.
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed by the respondent were recoverable as general or special damages under South African law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Verimark failed to prove its entitlement to the damages claimed. The damages sought did not flow naturally from the non-fulfilment of the suspensive condition, nor were they recoverable as special damages, as there was no evidence that Mia was aware of Verimark's plans to relocate or reduce costs at the time of contracting. The only damages recoverable were the costs incurred in drafting, negotiating, and signing the agreement, as expressly provided for in clause 7.3. The appeal was upheld, and the order of the court a quo was altered to grant judgment for the plaintiff on claim 1 only, with claim 2 dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. Judgment for the plaintiff on claim 1; claim 2 dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
  • On claim 1, judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff for R13 160 together with interest at 15.5% per annum from 24 February 2003 to date of payment.