Shiya Phantsi Cleaning and Security CC v Primat Construction CC (3960/2011) [2017] ZAGPPHC 104 (24 February 2017)

Shiya Phantsi Cleaning and Security CC v Primat Construction CC (3960/2011) [2017] ZAGPPHC 104 (24 February 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the terms and duration of the oral contract, the rate per guard, and the period for which services were rendered. The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and was contradicted by both documentary evidence and the testimony of his own witnesses. The defendant's version was supported by credible evidence and was not challenged in cross-examination. The court concluded that the probabilities favoured the defendant, and that the plaintiff's claim was inflated and unsupported. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and costs were awarded against him.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 104
Parties
Plaintiff: Shiya Phantsi Cleaning and Security CC; Defendant: Primat Construction CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Case Number
3960/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
S. A. M. Baqwa
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Security Services, Breach of Contract, Damages, Absolution From the Instance
Commercial and Corporate Oral Contract Security Services Breach of Contract Damages Absolution From the Instance

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shiya Phantsi Cleaning and Security CC

Plaintiff

Primat Construction CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved the existence and terms of the oral contract for security services.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff rendered services for the period claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached the contract and is liable for the amount claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the terms and duration of the oral contract, the rate per guard, and the period for which services were rendered. The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and was contradicted by both documentary evidence and the testimony of his own witnesses. The defendant's version was supported by credible evidence and was not challenged in cross-examination. The court concluded that the probabilities favoured the defendant, and that the plaintiff's claim was inflated and unsupported. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and costs were awarded against him.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs.