MIS Maintanance CC t/a NM Construction v Africon Infrastructure Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another (11555/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 304 (24 November 2008)
The court held that the construction guarantee is autonomous and must be interpreted according to its own terms, not by reference to the building contract. The guarantee allows payment upon notice of cancellation without requiring prior quantification or certification of losses. The arbitral award did not constrain the first respondent's right to call up the guarantee, and the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict. The applicant withdrew opposition to the cross-application, and by consent, the arbitral award was made an order of court. The applicant's conduct did not warrant a punitive costs order for the main application, but the application for...
- Citation
- [2008] ZAWCHC 304
- Parties
- Applicant: MIS Maintanance CC t/a N M Construction; Respondent: Africon Infrastructure Projects (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 24 November 2008
- Case Number
- 11555/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Extended Return Day of Interim Interdict; Cross Application for Arbitral Award to Be Made Order of Court
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; interim interdict discharged; cross-application upheld; costs awarded as specified.
- Judges
- Gauntlett
- Legal Topics
- Construction Guarantee, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Interim Interdict, Contract Cancellation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
MIS Maintanance CC t/a N M Construction
Applicant
Africon Infrastructure Projects (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
ABSA Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Extended Return Day of Interim Interdict; Cross Application for Arbitral Award to Be Made Order of Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the construction guarantee must be interpreted together with the building contract.
- 2 Whether the guarantee requires quantification and certification of losses before payment can be called up.
- 3 Whether the arbitral award obliges the employer to quantify and certify losses before invoking the guarantee.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the construction guarantee is autonomous and must be interpreted according to its own terms, not by reference to the building contract. The guarantee allows payment upon notice of cancellation without requiring prior quantification or certification of losses. The arbitral award did not constrain the first respondent's right to call up the guarantee, and the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict. The applicant withdrew opposition to the cross-application, and by consent, the arbitral award was made an order of court. The applicant's conduct did not warrant a punitive costs order for the main application, but the application for...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; interim interdict discharged; cross-application upheld; costs awarded as specified.
Orders
- The Rule Nisi is discharged and the application is dismissed, including the costs of two counsel.
- The cross application is upheld, with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment