About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAFSHC 398
|
|
Westrand Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Mantsopa Local Municipality (4728/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 398 (19 October 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case
no:
4728/2022
Reportable: YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
In
the matter between:
WESTRAND
CONSULTING (PTY) LTD
Plaintiff
and
MANTSOPA
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Defendant
CORAM:
P R CRONJé, AJ
HEARD
ON:
28 JULY 2023
DELIVERED
ON:
19 OCTOBER 2023
JUDGMENT
BY:
P R CRONJé, AJ
[1]
The Excipient excepts against the particulars of claim of the
Plaintiff in respect
of the averment that it duly completed the
tender and procurement process after it was appointed by the
Excipient but that no Service
Level Agreement (SLA) was appended. The
Plaintiff attached a copy of the appointment letter to the
particulars of claim but not
the SLA.
[2]
The Excipient also complains that the particulars of claim does not
contain any allegations
regarding what the contract price/value would
be for rendering of the professional services or whether the services
would be rendered
at a base-rate and if so, what the base-rate would
be.
[3]
On 5 April 2023, the Plaintiff filed a notice of intention to amend,
which was received
by the Excipient’s attorneys on 5 April
2023. Therein the appointment letter, Plaintiff’s acceptance of
the appointment
and the written and signed SLA was incorporated and,
on its version, appended. To address the second complaint, the
Plaintiff
referred to Clauses 2, 5 and 6 of the SLA and addressed the
remaining complaints.
[4]
The Plaintiff gave notice of a second intention to amend.
[5]
In the Excipient’s Supplementary Heads of Argument it is stated
that the Plaintiff
purported to effect the amendment by delivering
their amended pages of its particulars of claim on 24 April 2023.
The Plaintiff
however did not file the first SLA. The complaint
was therefore not addressed.
[6]
Mr Roux for the Plaintiff states that the cause of complaint has been
removed and
the amendments properly effected. According to him,
the amended particulars of claim contained the SLA.
[7]
From the submissions made before me by Mr Snellenburg SC and Mr Roux,
I gathered that
there appears to be an administrative oversight that
occurred in respect of the Plaintiff’s attachment of the SLA
and Mr
Roux submitted that the Plaintiff do not wish to impugn any
oversight to any of the attorneys.
[8]
From what was submitted by both parties, it appears to me that the
grounds for exception
was properly addressed, albeit been complicated
by the administrative oversight, and that it would be fair to both
parties that
each pay their own costs.
[9]
I therefore make the following order:
9.1
The Exception is dismissed.
9.2
Each party to pay its own costs.
P R CRONJé, AJ
For
the Excipient/Defendant:
Adv N
Snellenburg SC
Mohobo
Attorneys Inc.
Bloemfontein
For
the Plaintiff:
Adv
LA Roux
MM
Kruger Attorneys
Bloemfontein