Pavebuild CC v F.J. Joubert & Sons CC (1605/2017) [2019] ZAMPMBHC 16 (9 April 2019)

Pavebuild CC v F.J. Joubert & Sons CC (1605/2017) [2019] ZAMPMBHC 16 (9 April 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff constructed the wall at Makro Nelspruit in accordance with the design and specifications provided by the defendant's engineer, Mr Farraris. The construction was subject to regular inspection by the defendant's personnel and engineers, with no complaints or instructions to rectify any work during the process. The wall was signed off by the designer, and all required compaction and material tests met the necessary standards. The defendant's counterclaim for damages was unsupported by credible evidence, as no photographs or expert reports substantiated the alleged collapse or defective workmanship. The court held that subsequent damage to the wall was...

Citation
[2019] ZAMPMBHC 16
Parties
Plaintiff: Pavebuild CC; Defendant: F.J. Joubert & Sons CC
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2019
Case Number
1605/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
Jansen van Rensburg
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Breach of Contract, Quantification of Damages, Expert Evidence, Counterclaim, Service Rendered and Payment
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Breach of Contract Quantification of Damages Expert Evidence Counterclaim Service Rendered and Payment

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavebuild CC

Plaintiff

F.J. Joubert & Sons CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff for construction work performed, including the Makro wall.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's counterclaim for damages due to alleged poor workmanship and collapse of the wall is valid.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff performed the work in accordance with the contract specifications and professional standards.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff constructed the wall at Makro Nelspruit in accordance with the design and specifications provided by the defendant's engineer, Mr Farraris. The construction was subject to regular inspection by the defendant's personnel and engineers, with no complaints or instructions to rectify any work during the process. The wall was signed off by the designer, and all required compaction and material tests met the necessary standards. The defendant's counterclaim for damages was unsupported by credible evidence, as no photographs or expert reports substantiated the alleged collapse or defective workmanship. The court held that subsequent damage to the wall was...

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the following amounts, including VAT: Claim 1: R160,528.00; Claim 2: Rings around trees: R67,200.00; Civil works: R24,460.00; Curving: R22,400.00; Side stones: R9,028.00; Civil works: R95,040.00; Construction of the Makro wall: R969,606.17; Claim 3: R35,470.27; Claim 4:...
  • Interest at 15.5% per annum on the total amount due from date of service of summons.