Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Posts & Telecommunications (650/92) [1995] ZASCA 128 (17 November 1995)

Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Posts & Telecommunications (650/92) [1995] ZASCA 128 (17 November 1995)

The court held that the language of clause 11.2.2, read with schedule 2 and the incorporated documents, clearly indicated that all bedding and padding material, including coarse river sand and crusher run, was required to comply with the specified grading, compactability, and plasticity tests. The repeated use of 'material' in the clause and the references in the schedule and incorporated documents demonstrated the parties' intention that all sources of bedding and padding material be tested and meet the specification. The appellant's interpretation was inconsistent with the contract documentation and the conduct of the parties prior to acceptance of the tender. There was no ambiguity...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 128
Parties
Appellant: Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Posts & Telecommunications
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 1995
Case Number
650/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division; Trial Court Dismissed Action for Declaratory Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Hefer, Vivier, Scott
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Variation of Contract, Extrinsic Evidence, Declaratory Relief
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Interpretation Variation of Contract Extrinsic Evidence Declaratory Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raubex Construction (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Minister of Posts & Telecommunications

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division; Trial Court Dismissed Action for Declaratory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper interpretation of clause 11.2.2 of the specification regarding bedding and padding material?
  2. 2 Does the specification's testing requirements apply to all types of bedding and padding material, including coarse river sand and crusher run?
  3. 3 Was the engineer's instruction a variation of the contract entitling the appellant to additional compensation?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the language of clause 11.2.2, read with schedule 2 and the incorporated documents, clearly indicated that all bedding and padding material, including coarse river sand and crusher run, was required to comply with the specified grading, compactability, and plasticity tests. The repeated use of 'material' in the clause and the references in the schedule and incorporated documents demonstrated the parties' intention that all sources of bedding and padding material be tested and meet the specification. The appellant's interpretation was inconsistent with the contract documentation and the conduct of the parties prior to acceptance of the tender. There was no ambiguity...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.