Royal HaskononGDHV (Pty) Ltd v Alfred Nzo District Municipality (319/18) [2018] ZAECMHC 33 (21 June 2018)

Royal HaskononGDHV (Pty) Ltd v Alfred Nzo District Municipality (319/18) [2018] ZAECMHC 33 (21 June 2018)

The respondent has disclosed the nature and grounds of its defence, namely that no work has been performed under phase 3 and that any work performed under phases 1 and 2 has already been paid for. These defences are good in law and, if proved, would constitute a complete defence to the applicant's claim. The respondent has therefore succeeded in raising a bona fide defence, and summary judgment must be refused.

Citation
[2018] ZAECMHC 33
Parties
Applicant: Royal HaskononGDHV (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Alfred Nzo District Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Case Number
319/18
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; respondent granted leave to defend; costs reserved for trial.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Bona Fide Defence, Payment of Invoices
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Bona Fide Defence Payment of Invoices

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

Parties

Royal HaskononGDHV (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Alfred Nzo District Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has raised a bona fide defence that is good in law to resist summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether payment is due to the applicant for work allegedly performed under phase 3 of the project.
  3. 3 Whether the work claimed for was already performed and paid for under phases 1 and 2.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent has disclosed the nature and grounds of its defence, namely that no work has been performed under phase 3 and that any work performed under phases 1 and 2 has already been paid for. These defences are good in law and, if proved, would constitute a complete defence to the applicant's claim. The respondent has therefore succeeded in raising a bona fide defence, and summary judgment must be refused.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; respondent granted leave to defend; costs reserved for trial.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • The respondent is granted leave to defend.