Swanepoel v Joco Wildboerdery (Edms) Bpk (A903/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 191 (14 December 2016)

Swanepoel v Joco Wildboerdery (Edms) Bpk (A903/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 191 (14 December 2016)

The court found that the probabilities overwhelmingly supported the appellant's version that the mandate was to drill a new borehole three meters from the old well, not to clean the old well. The appellant's immediate commencement of drilling, his refusal to clean old wells due to equipment concerns, and the respondent's conduct all pointed to an agreement for drilling rather than cleaning. The respondent's version was found implausible, and the evidence did not support a misunderstanding or deviation from the mandate. Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to payment for the drilling services rendered.

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 191
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Stephanus Marais Swanepoel; Respondent: Joco Wildboerdery (Edms) Bpk
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Case Number
A903/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; magistrate's order set aside; judgment granted in favour of appellant for the claimed amount with interest and costs.
Judges
Allie, Rogers
Legal Topics
Contractual Mandate, Performance of Services, Payment for Services Rendered
Commercial and Corporate Contractual Mandate Performance of Services Payment for Services Rendered

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

Parties

Johannes Stephanus Marais Swanepoel

Appellant

Joco Wildboerdery (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandate given to the appellant was to clean the old well or to drill a new borehole three meters from the old well.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to payment for drilling the borehole near the old well.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the probabilities overwhelmingly supported the appellant's version that the mandate was to drill a new borehole three meters from the old well, not to clean the old well. The appellant's immediate commencement of drilling, his refusal to clean old wells due to equipment concerns, and the respondent's conduct all pointed to an agreement for drilling rather than cleaning. The respondent's version was found implausible, and the evidence did not support a misunderstanding or deviation from the mandate. Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to payment for the drilling services rendered.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; magistrate's order set aside; judgment granted in favour of appellant for the claimed amount with interest and costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with judgment in favour of the plaintiff for R45 383.40 and interest thereon at 9% a tempore morae from 21 April 2015 to date of payment.