Van den Heerver NO and Others v Smith (925/03) [2009] ZANWHC 23 (25 September 2009)

Van den Heerver NO and Others v Smith (925/03) [2009] ZANWHC 23 (25 September 2009)

The Full Bench found that the certificate of balance issued by the auditor was correctly admitted as prima facie proof of the respondent's indebtedness to Agrichicks, as agreed at the pre-trial conference and in accordance with the contract. The respondent failed to rebut the certificate or provide credible evidence challenging the amount certified. The statutory requirements for farm feed under the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act did not apply, as the feed was prepared for Agrichicks' own use and supplied to its agent, not sold to a third party. The contract did not stipulate that chickens of a particular quality (such as F1) were to be supplied, and...

Citation
[2009] ZANWHC 23
Parties
Appellant: Theodor Wilhelm van den Heever N.O.; Appellant: Enver Mohammed Motala N.O.; Appellant: Jayant Daji Pema N.O.; Respondent: Frederik Jacobus Smith
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Case Number
925/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Judgment of Landman J, Following Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Granted to Both Parties.
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the court a quo set aside and substituted with judgment for the appellants for the full amount claimed; both counterclaims dismissed with costs.
Judges
R D Hendricks, A M Kgoele, M J Moloto
Legal Topics
Contractual Liability, Certificate of Balance, Set Off, Breach of Contract, Statutory Compliance, Quantum of Damages
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Liability Certificate of Balance Set Off Breach of Contract Statutory Compliance Quantum of 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theodor Wilhelm van den Heever N.O.

Appellant

Enver Mohammed Motala N.O.

Appellant

Jayant Daji Pema N.O.

Appellant

Frederik Jacobus Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Judgment of Landman J, Following Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Granted to Both Parties.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the certificate of balance issued by the auditor constitutes prima facie proof of the amount owed by the respondent to Agrichicks.
  2. 2 Whether Agrichicks' supply of chicken feed complied with statutory requirements under the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947.
  3. 3 Whether the supply of allegedly inferior chickens constituted a breach of contract and justified the respondent's counterclaim for damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Bench found that the certificate of balance issued by the auditor was correctly admitted as prima facie proof of the respondent's indebtedness to Agrichicks, as agreed at the pre-trial conference and in accordance with the contract. The respondent failed to rebut the certificate or provide credible evidence challenging the amount certified. The statutory requirements for farm feed under the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act did not apply, as the feed was prepared for Agrichicks' own use and supplied to its agent, not sold to a third party. The contract did not stipulate that chickens of a particular quality (such as F1) were to be supplied, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the court a quo set aside and substituted with judgment for the appellants for the full amount claimed; both counterclaims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.