Sebothoma v Sithole (A627/2007) [2010] ZAGPPHC 586 (16 February 2010)

Sebothoma v Sithole (A627/2007) [2010] ZAGPPHC 586 (16 February 2010)

The court held that the contract was not one requiring personal performance by the respondent, and the work was completed despite his hospitalisation. The appellant's claim of supervening impossibility was rejected. The magistrate erred in not deducting the amount paid by the appellant to the labourers from the contract sum. The correct amount due to the respondent was R16,743, being the balance after deducting R13,257 paid to labourers from the R30,000 found due. Interest was awarded from the date of summons.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 586
Parties
Appellant: M.D Sebothoma; Respondent: A B Sithole
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2010
Case Number
A627/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the magistrate's court is substituted.
Judges
AA Louw, VV Tlhapi
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Supervening Impossibility, Quantum of Damages, Interest on Judgment Debt
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Oral Contract Supervening Impossibility Quantum of Damages Interest on Judgment Debt

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

Parties

M.D Sebothoma

Appellant

A B Sithole

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in determining the contract amount and payments made.
  2. 2 Whether supervening impossibility due to the respondent's injury excused performance or payment.
  3. 3 Whether the amount paid to labourers by the appellant should be deducted from the contract sum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the contract was not one requiring personal performance by the respondent, and the work was completed despite his hospitalisation. The appellant's claim of supervening impossibility was rejected. The magistrate erred in not deducting the amount paid by the appellant to the labourers from the contract sum. The correct amount due to the respondent was R16,743, being the balance after deducting R13,257 paid to labourers from the R30,000 found due. Interest was awarded from the date of summons.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the magistrate's court is substituted.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of R16,743.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 15.5% per annum from 4 February 2004 until date of payment.