Rumdel Cape v South Africa Roads Agency Soc Ltd (234/2015) [2016] ZASCA 23 (18 March 2016)

Rumdel Cape v South Africa Roads Agency Soc Ltd (234/2015) [2016] ZASCA 23 (18 March 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the principal relief sought by the appellant, namely monetary compensation and release from contractual performance due to force majeure, was no longer being pursued, as the contract had been completed and the appellant did not persist with its monetary claim. The request for a declaratory order regarding force majeure was ancillary to the principal claim and, with that claim no longer live, there was no existing, future, or contingent right or obligation to be determined. The court found that issuing a declaratory order would be academic and serve no practical purpose, as any future disputes would depend on their own facts and circumstances....

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 23
Parties
Appellant: Rumdel Construction (Cape) (Pty) Ltd/EXR Construction Holdings (Pty) Ltd/Mazcon Joint Venture; Respondent: South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Case Number
234/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll, with costs.
Judges
Maya, Leach, Seriti, Pillay, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Force Majeure, Declaratory Relief, Contractual Obligations, Employer Risk
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Force Majeure Declaratory Relief Contractual Obligations Employer Risk

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rumdel Construction (Cape) (Pty) Ltd/EXR Construction Holdings (Pty) Ltd/Mazcon Joint Venture

Appellant

South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the violent events on 20 and 27 May 2014 constituted force majeure under the contract.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to declaratory relief in respect of force majeure.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute has become academic and whether a declaratory order should be issued.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the principal relief sought by the appellant, namely monetary compensation and release from contractual performance due to force majeure, was no longer being pursued, as the contract had been completed and the appellant did not persist with its monetary claim. The request for a declaratory order regarding force majeure was ancillary to the principal claim and, with that claim no longer live, there was no existing, future, or contingent right or obligation to be determined. The court found that issuing a declaratory order would be academic and serve no practical purpose, as any future disputes would depend on their own facts and circumstances....

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll, with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll, with costs.