Sandlundlu (Pty) Ltd v Shepstone & Wylie Inc ([2011] 3 All SA 183 (SCA)) [2010] ZASCA 173; 63/10 (2 December 2010)

Sandlundlu (Pty) Ltd v Shepstone & Wylie Inc ([2011] 3 All SA 183 (SCA)) [2010] ZASCA 173; 63/10 (2 December 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's admitted breach of mandate—failing to amend the lease agreement to reflect the correct rental—was a probable cause of the appellant's loss. The court found that, had the lease reflected the agreed rental, the appellant would likely have enforced payment earlier and recovered some rental from Biz-Afrika, despite its later insolvency. However, the court agreed with the trial court that damages for lost rental should be limited to the period up to March 2002, when transfer of the property would likely have occurred, as it was improbable that the appellant could have recovered rental beyond that date. The court also held that attorney and...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 173
Parties
Appellant: Sandlundlu (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Shepstone & Wylie Inc
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2010
Case Number
63/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court
Outcome
The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Nugent, Heher, Snyders, R Pillay, K Pillay
Legal Topics
Breach of Mandate, Contractual Damages, Factual Causation, Remoteness of Damage, Attorney Negligence
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Mandate Contractual Damages Factual Causation Remoteness of Damage Attorney Negligence

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

Parties

Sandlundlu (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Shepstone & Wylie Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's admitted breach of mandate caused the appellant's loss of rental income.
  2. 2 Whether damages for lost rental should extend beyond the period awarded by the trial court.
  3. 3 Whether attorney and client costs for arbitration are recoverable as damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's admitted breach of mandate—failing to amend the lease agreement to reflect the correct rental—was a probable cause of the appellant's loss. The court found that, had the lease reflected the agreed rental, the appellant would likely have enforced payment earlier and recovered some rental from Biz-Afrika, despite its later insolvency. However, the court agreed with the trial court that damages for lost rental should be limited to the period up to March 2002, when transfer of the property would likely have occurred, as it was improbable that the appellant could have recovered rental beyond that date. The court also held that attorney and...

Court Disposition

The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The cross appeal is dismissed with costs.