R & R Construction v Gayadeen and Another (5609/2000) [2012] ZAKZDHC 98 (15 May 2012)

R & R Construction v Gayadeen and Another (5609/2000) [2012] ZAKZDHC 98 (15 May 2012)

The court found that the First Defendant had assumed liability for payment of the dwelling, not merely by enrichment but by explicit acceptance of responsibility during negotiations. The Plaintiff's evidence was preferred over that of the Defendants, and the court rejected the defence that the Plaintiff was responsible for sub-division or obtaining a bond. The court held that the claim had not prescribed, as negotiations and extensions continued, and the Defendants acknowledged the debt. Judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the claimed amount, with costs awarded jointly and severally against both Defendants.

Citation
[2012] ZAKZDHC 98
Parties
Plaintiff: R & R Construction; Defendant: Narsingh Gayadeen; Defendant: H. Gayadeen aka H. Narsingh
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Case Number
5609/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against both Defendants, jointly and severally, for the claimed amount and costs.
Judges
Mbatha
Legal Topics
Enrichment, Prescription, Joint and Several Liability, Building Contract, Payment of Debt
Land and Property Civil Procedure Enrichment Prescription Joint and Several Liability Building Contract Payment of Debt

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R & R Construction

Plaintiff

Narsingh Gayadeen

Defendant

H. Gayadeen aka H. Narsingh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant is liable for payment to the Plaintiff despite not being a direct party to the building contract.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's claim has become prescribed against both Defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was responsible for arranging the sub-division of the property and obtaining a bond for payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Defendant had assumed liability for payment of the dwelling, not merely by enrichment but by explicit acceptance of responsibility during negotiations. The Plaintiff's evidence was preferred over that of the Defendants, and the court rejected the defence that the Plaintiff was responsible for sub-division or obtaining a bond. The court held that the claim had not prescribed, as negotiations and extensions continued, and the Defendants acknowledged the debt. Judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the claimed amount, with costs awarded jointly and severally against both Defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against both Defendants, jointly and severally, for the claimed amount and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of Plaintiff in the sum of R280,662.18 against First and Second Defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • First and Second Defendants are ordered to pay the costs of this action jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.