About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAECBHC 11
|
|
Crucial Trade 149 (Pty) LTD t/a Meyers Vehicle Hire v The MEC, Department of Local Government And Traditional Affairs (35/14) [2018] ZAECBHC 11 (23 October 2018)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE LOCAL
DIVISION, BHISHO)
Case No: 35/14
In
the matter between:
CRUCIAL
TRADE 149 (PTY) LTD t/a
MEYERS
VEHICLE HIRE
Plaintiff
And
THE
MEC, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS
Defendant
JUDGMENT
BESHE J:
[1]
Plaintiff instituted a claim against the defendant for payment of an
a sum of R314 597.18 in respect
of vehicle hire services
rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant which plaintiff alleged
was at the defendant’s special
instance and request during the
period 2010 to 2013. (Rental Agreement).
[2]
In order to resolve the dispute between them in this matter, the
parties agreed to a stated case as
contemplated in
Rule 33 of the
Uniform Rules
of this court.
[3]
The facts agreed upon for purposes of the stated case appear from a
joint minute / statement signed
on behalf of both parties which reads
thus:
AGREED
FACTS
:
6.
The Plaintiff has provided / hired its vehicles to the Defendant over
a period
of many years as and when requested by the Defendant and/or
the Department’s employees.
7.
The normal procedure entailed the following:
7.1
A telephonic request from an official of the Defendant for a
quotation in respect of the
Defendant’s specific travel
requirements;
7.2
A brief discussion about the applicable vehicle hire rates followed
by an oral or written
quotation;
7.3
An oral acceptance of the quotation with the provision of an order
number, alternatively,
the provision of a written standard order form
by the officials of the Defendant;
7.4
The Plaintiff would prepare a contract document and a vehicle sheet
relevant to the transaction;
7.5
The Plaintiff would deliver the vehicle to the Defendant’s
official in Bhisho at which
time the official concerned would inspect
the vehicle, signs check sheet and contract and take delivery of the
vehicle.
8.
The basic charge out rate for the hiring of vehicles, was as follows:
8.1
A basic charge per day (first 100km free);
8.2
A delivery charge;
8.3
All fuel costs.
9.
On 7 December 2016 the parties reached agreement as follows:
9.1
The Defendant admitted indebtedness in full in respect of the claims
listed as POC2, POC3, POC4,
POC7, POC13, POC24, POC25, POC27, POC29,
POC31, POC33 and POC34 in the sum of R38 989,38 (Thirty Eight
Thousand Nine Hundred
and Eighty Nine Rand and Thirty Eight Cents);
9.2
The defendant admitted partial liability in respect of the following
claims:
9.2.1 POC5 –
R15 639,85 (Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Nine Rand
and Eighty Five Cents);
9.2.2 POC18
– R9 051,71 (Nine Thousand and Fifty One Rand and Seventy
One Cents);
9.2.3 POC19
– R17 334,96 (Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty
Four Rand and Ninety Six Cents);
9.2.4 TOTAL
– R42 026,52 (Forty Two Thousand and Twenty Six Rand and
Fifty Two Cents).
9.3
Certain of the claims were settled directly between the parties as
follows:
9.3.1
POC8 – R1 940,00 (One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty
Rand);
9.3.2
POC26 – R4 637,17 (Four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty
Seven Rand and Seventeen Cents);
9.3.3 POC28
- R4 637,17 (Four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Seven Rand and
Seventeen Cents);
9.3.4 POC30
- R4 637,17 (Four Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Seven Rand and
Seventeen Cents);
9.3.5 POC32
– R11 261,44 (Eleven Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty One
Rand and Forty Four Cents);
9.3.6 TOTAL
– R27 112,95 (Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twelve
Rand and Ninety Five Cents).
9.4
The Defendant’s agreed indebtedness as set out above in the sum
of R108 128, 85 (One
Hundred and Eight Thousand One Hundred and
Twenty Eight Rand and Eighty Five Cents) plus interest was paid by
the Defendant at
the end of March 2017.
9.5
The balance of the claims referred to in paragraph 9.2 above remains
in dispute, these being
as follows:
9.5.1
POC5 – R16 403,55 (Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred and Three
Rand and Fifty Five Cents);
9.5.2 POC18
– R17 280,55 (Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty
Rand and Fifty Five Cents);
9.5.3 POC19
– R79 740,80 (Seventy Nine Thousand Sven Hundred and Forty
Rand and Eighty Cents);
9.5.4 TOTAL
– R113 424,90 (One Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Four
Hundred and Twenty Four Rand and Ninety
Cents;
9.6
The Defendant disputes payment of the claims listed as POC6, POC9,
POC10, POC 11, POC 12, POC
14, POC15, POC16, POC17 and POC20 in the
total sum of R70 715,91 (Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred and
Fifteen Rand and Ninety
One Cents), in their entirety;
9.7
The Plaintiff has abandoned the claims referred to as POC21, POC22
and POC23;
9.8
A copy of the minute of the pre-trial meeting confirming the above is
annexed hereto, marked
“
A”
;
9.9
A schedule of the disputed claims in the sum of R184 141,69 (One
Hundred and Eighty Four
Thousand One Hundred and Forty One Rand and
Sixty Nine Cents) is annexed hereto, marked “
B”
;
9.10
All the Plaintiff’s claims relate to charges recoverable by it
arising from the hiring of vehicles
by the Defendant and/or its
employees at its behest and constitute hiring charges, damages claims
and/or claims for losses for
late return of the vehicles as governed
by the Plaintiff’s standard terms and conditions of hire, an
extract of which is
annexed hereto, marked “
C”
,
which governs all the hiring transactions;
9.11
The Defendant admits the quantum of the Plaintiff’s claims as
set out in Annexure “
B”
.
10.
A schedule and copies of the orders and invoices relevant to the
Plaintiff’s claims is
annexed hereto marked “
D”
.
PLAINTIFF’S
CONTENTIONS
:
11.
Plaintiff contends that:
11.1
All claims made by it in respect of hiring, damages, losses and
related charges of its vehicles by the Defendant
are lawful and
recoverable by virtue of the standard terms and conditions of hire as
per Annexure “
C”
hereto, alternatively, on the
basis of unjust enrichment.
DEFENDANT’S
CONTENTION
:
12.
The Defendant:
12.1
disputes liability for the balance of the claims
under POC5, POC18 and POC19 on the basis that the time
period for
which charges are raised, fall outside the period of the original
order;
12.2
contends, in respect of the claims listed as POC6,
POC10, POC11, POC12, POC14, POC15, POC16, POC17 and POC20
that,
although the claim is an extension of the original order, it falls
outside the period of the original order.
ISSUES
TO BE DETERMINED
:
13.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to payment from the Defendants of
its claims that remain in
dispute in terms of the general terms and
conditions of the rental agreement and/or on the basis of enrichment,
notwithstanding
the fact that the balance of the claims under POC5,
POC18 and POC19 fall outside the period of the original order and the
claims
listed as POC6, POC9 POC10, POC11, POC12, POC14, POC15, POC16,
POC17 and POC20, although constituting an extension of the original
order, fall outside the period of the original order.
14.
Any other question of law necessary and/or incidental for purposes of
giving effect to,
alternatively, determining the above issues.
[4]
It is apparent from both the statements embodying the stated case and
the
Rule 37
minute in respect of a pre-trial meeting held on
the 7 and 8 December 2016, that:
Defendant partially
admits liability in respect of three of the remaining claims.
In respect of ten of the
remaining claims, liability for the entire amount claimed therein is
denied.
In respect of the claims
where the claims are partially admitted, defendant asserts that these
claims fall outside the period of
the original order.
In respect of the amounts
where liability of the entire amount is disputed, defendant asserts
that the claims are an extension of
an original order, but fall
outside the period of the original order.
From this, it is clear
that the existence of an agreement/s between the parties is not
denied. This, in my view, is implicit in
defendant’s contention
or basis for denying liability for payment of these amounts.
[5]
Initially defendant pleaded that its employees who transacted with
the plaintiff lacked the authority
to bind the defendant. This
defence fell by the wayside. This makes it difficult to understand
the essence of the defence raised
by the defendant in respect of both
categories of claims. I do not understand defendant’s assertion
to be that plaintiff
did not provide hired vehicles as alleged to the
defendant or its employees for the stated duration or periods
mentioned. The defence
in respect of the claims that are denied in
their entirety is even more obscure:
“
Although
the claim is an extension of the original order, it falls outside the
period of the original order.”
[6]
In what appears to be a revival of the initial defence, which does
not form part of the stated case,
lack of authority on the part of
defendant’s employees,
Mr Kubukeli
argued that in
respect of the invoices in issue, there were no official orders
issued in line with the defendant’s Supply
Chain Management
Policy. In the same breath, according to the statement containing the
stated case, defendant contends as far as
the last category of claims
is concerned, which is the bulk of the disputed claims, that the
claim is an extension of the original
order, but falls outside the
period of the original order. This gives that impression that the
original order was extended, which
explains the claim falling outside
the period of the original order, which as I understand, was
extended.
[7]
Plaintiff contends that the claims are in respect of charges related
to the hiring of motor vehicles
to the defendant, damages thereto,
losses and related charges. And that same are recoverable by virtue
of the standard terms and
conditions of hire. In the general terms
and conditions of applicable to the hiring of vehicles (attached as
annexure “C”)
to the stated case, rental period is
defined as follows:
1.6 “RENTAL PERIOD”
means the period commencing at the moment the keys to the vehicle are
handed to the renter and terminating
when the keys are returned to
MEYERS VEHICLE HIRE.”
[8]
In respect of the partially admitted claims – POC5 and POC19 –
there is a charge for
damage to the motor vehicles – the hired
motor vehicles were involved in accidents. It is not clear what part
of the claimed
amounts defendant later admitted and on what basis.
This includes POC18 where there is no suggestion that the “hired”
vehicle was involved in accident.
[9]
Also annexed to the agreement as regards the stated case is a grid /
table containing: claim numbers,
order numbers and invoice numbers
regarding the disputed claims marked “D”. In respect of
POC17 (wholly disputed) and
POC18 (partially disputed) there are no
order numbers reflected. In respect of POC19 and POC20 the table
records that the order
was made verbally.
[10] We do
know however from defendant’s contentions that there was an
original order, that at some stage it
was extended, (in respect of
the claims denied in their entirety). So, there must have been an
order in terms of POC20, although
defendant alleges the claim falls
outside the period of the original order – which according to
defendant was extended. I
have already noted that the defendant does
not deny that delivery of the hired vehicles occurred on the given
date so did the return
thereof.
[11]
The question that I am asked to adjudicate is whether the plaintiff
is entitled to payment notwithstanding
the fact that according to the
defendant “the claims fall outside the period of the original
order”. The definition
of “Rental Period” in the
general terms and conditions appears to be clear and unambiguous –
to be the period
commencing at the moment the keys to the vehicle are
handed to the renter and as terminating when the vehicle and the keys
are
returned to plaintiff. In my view, it therefore follows that the
defendant should be liable for the costs associated with having
been
in possession of plaintiff’s vehicles for the period defined in
the general terms and conditions as the “Rental
Period”.
Accordingly the question I have been asked to adjudicate is answered
in favour of the plaintiff.
[12]
Judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant
for payment of the sum of R184 141.69
plus interest.
Costs of suit, such
costs to include the reserved costs of 9 December 2016 and 16 January
2017.
N G BESHE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
APPEARANCES
For
the Plaintiff
:
Adv: KL Watt
Instructed
by:
GORDON
McCUNE ATTORNEYS
140
Alexandra Road
KING
WILLIAM’S TOWN
Ref:
G McCune/ya
Tel.:
043 – 642 1519
For
the Defendant:
Adv:
LP Kubukeli
Instructed
by:
THE
STATE ATTORNEY
c/o
Shared Legal Services
32
Alexandra Road
KING
WILLIAM’S TOWN
Ref:
88/14-P2 (Mr Ngwenya)
Tel.:
043 – 706 5100
Date Heard:
28 May 2018
Date Reserved: 28
May 2018
Date Delivered: 23
October 2018