Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Transnet SOC Ltd v Totalenergies Marketing South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (2022/007321) [2023] ZAGPJHC 941 (23 August 2023)
The High Court dismissed Sasol’s Rule 26 application to compel targeted disclosure, holding the requested documents were not relevant to the pleaded dispute.
Unit 15 Rondevoux CC t/a Done Rite Services v Makgabo (A3075/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 627 (1 September 2022)
Appeal over a building contract dispute. The High Court upheld a quantum meruit claim for work done before exclusion from the property and fixed payment at R91,605.61 plus interest.
Auditor-General of South Africa v Accounting Officer of Gateway Airports Authority (Ltd) and Another (124/2022) [2022] ZALMPPHC 27 (26 May 2022)
The court held that the plaintiff's claim for audit fees is a debt or liquidated demand because the amount is determined in accordance with section 23(1) of the Public Audit Act, after consultation with the oversight mechanism and National Treasury, and is ascertainable by mere calculation. The claim is not based on an implied term or quantum meruit requiring the court to determine reasonableness. Therefore, the application for default judgment should have been referred to the Registrar in terms of Rule 31(5)(a), as the claim meets the requirements for a debt or liquidated demand.
Source excerpt
Sol Plaatje Municipality v Technofin (Pty) Ltd (2230/2014;34/2020) [2022] ZANCHC 14 (18 March 2022)
The appeal was upheld on the basis that the trial court erred in equating the quantum of enrichment to the contract price in the invalid lease agreement. The court found that the contract price is not the appropriate benchmark for determining enrichment under condictio sine causa, as it includes profit, which is not recoverable. The correct measure is the reasonable market value of the use and occupation of the equipment, which was established by expert evidence to be significantly less than the contract price. The court held that the quantum of enrichment is the lesser of the enrichment or i…
Source excerpt
Intech Instruments v Transnet Limited t/a South African Port Operations (1165/18) [2019] ZASCA 79; [2019] 3 All SA 357 (SCA) (31 May 2019)
The SCA held that this was a performance-specification construction contract, that Transnet’s safety-based stop-works orders were lawful, and dismissed Intech’s appeal.
Thushang Construction CC v Greater Tubatse Municipality (9834/2003) [2016] ZAGPPHC 557 (4 May 2016)
High Court judgment awarding Thushanang Construction CC payment for work on a municipal sports facility project, including disputed phase 2 earthworks.
ACL/Intara Joint Venture v Baran Engineerging (17127/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 143 (12 February 2016)
High Court refused remittal of an arbitration award, found no good cause under section 32(2), and made the award an order of court.
MM Moloto Properties (Pty) Ltd v Municipality of Lephalale (32147/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 752 (27 August 2015)
The High Court held the municipality unjustly enriched by extra work done by the plaintiff and ordered payment, interest, and costs.
Mettle Architects CC v Lason Trading 12 (Pty) Limited (2008/30703) [2012] ZAGPJHC 301 (19 March 2012)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not support the importation of a right to fair and reasonable remuneration into the consultancy contract, as the contract expressly provides for the calculation of fees and contains a non-variation clause. The plaintiff's alleged waiver of its right to remuneration based on a percentage of project cost does not entitle it to substitute a new basis for remuneration not contained in the contract. The exceptions based on insufficient averments to sustain a cause of action and on the alleged variation of the contract succeed. However, th…
Source excerpt
Melmoth Town Board v Marius Mostert (Pty) Ltd. (375/1982) [1984] ZASCA 71; [1984] 2 All SA 412 (A) ; 1984 (3) SA 718 (A) (30 May 1984)
The court held that clause 54 allowed upward or downward contract-price adjustment for variations, but the engineer wrongly used it to alter item rates.
Explore more
