Shadwell and Another v Transnet Limited (3690/06) [2007] ZAECHC 104 (6 December 2007)

Shadwell and Another v Transnet Limited (3690/06) [2007] ZAECHC 104 (6 December 2007)

The court found that the plaintiffs performed the work as specified in the contract and are entitled to payment for those services. However, the removal of railway tracks was not included in the contract's scope, and no evidence supported the plaintiffs' claim that they were instructed to remove the tracks. The defendant's witness did not broaden the scope of work nor authorize removal of the tracks. The plaintiffs failed to testify or call witnesses to support their version. Consequently, the removal of the tracks was wrongful, and the defendant is entitled to damages for their value. Both the claim in convention and the counterclaim succeed.

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 104
Parties
Plaintiff: Angelique Shadwell; Plaintiff: Valerie Shadwell; Defendant: Transnet Limited
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2007
Case Number
3690/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendant's counterclaim succeed. Each party is awarded judgment for their respective claims.
Judges
A.R. Erasmus
Legal Topics
Contractual Liability, Counterclaim, Scope of Work, Damages
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Liability Counterclaim Scope of Work Damages

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

Parties

Angelique Shadwell

Plaintiff

Valerie Shadwell

Plaintiff

Transnet Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment under the contract for services rendered.
  2. 2 Whether the removal of railway tracks by the plaintiffs was within the scope of the contract or constituted wrongful conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to damages for the removed railway tracks.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs performed the work as specified in the contract and are entitled to payment for those services. However, the removal of railway tracks was not included in the contract's scope, and no evidence supported the plaintiffs' claim that they were instructed to remove the tracks. The defendant's witness did not broaden the scope of work nor authorize removal of the tracks. The plaintiffs failed to testify or call witnesses to support their version. Consequently, the removal of the tracks was wrongful, and the defendant is entitled to damages for their value. Both the claim in convention and the counterclaim succeed.

Court Disposition

Both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendant's counterclaim succeed. Each party is awarded judgment for their respective claims.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs R129,780.70, interest at the legal rate from date of summons until payment, and costs of suit.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendant, jointly and severally, R123,000.00, interest at the legal rate from date of delivery of the counterclaim until payment, and costs of suit.