Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk v Krynauw (18545/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 501 (29 June 2016)

Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk v Krynauw (18545/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 501 (29 June 2016)

The court found that the defendant, as attorney, conceded the mandate and its breach, but the plaintiff failed to prove it suffered damages as a result. Regarding the R50,000 claim, the evidence showed no loan agreement existed, and any action to recover this amount would have failed. For the R1,120,970.78 claim, the plaintiff failed to prove the existence and enforceability of the addenda, the fulfilment of suspensive conditions, its own performance, and the calculation of the amounts owed. The plaintiff also failed to prove negligence on the part of Vermaak or that it would have succeeded in any claim against the homeowners or Vermaak. The evidence presented, particularly annexure 'C',...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 501
Parties
Plaintiff: Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk; Defendant: Pierre Krynauw
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2016
Case Number
18545/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Canca AJ
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Breach of Mandate, Quantification of Damages, Attorney Client Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Breach of Mandate Quantification of Damages Attorney Client Liability

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

Parties

Satara Ontwikkelaars (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

Pierre Krynauw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached his mandate as attorney to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's breach amounted to professional negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the defendant's breach of mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, as attorney, conceded the mandate and its breach, but the plaintiff failed to prove it suffered damages as a result. Regarding the R50,000 claim, the evidence showed no loan agreement existed, and any action to recover this amount would have failed. For the R1,120,970.78 claim, the plaintiff failed to prove the existence and enforceability of the addenda, the fulfilment of suspensive conditions, its own performance, and the calculation of the amounts owed. The plaintiff also failed to prove negligence on the part of Vermaak or that it would have succeeded in any claim against the homeowners or Vermaak. The evidence presented, particularly annexure 'C',...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.