NCLAT Sets Aside Insolvency, Imposes ?10L Costs Following Recusal over Attempt to Influence Member  ||  J&K&L HC: Sec 195 CrPC Bars Cognizance Without Public Servant's Complaint, Not FIR or Investigation  ||  Allahabad HC: Preliminary Issues Barred if Raised 18 Years After Issues Were Framed in a Suit  ||  Guj HC: No Prior Hearing Needed to Dismiss Cop After Corruption Conviction under Article 311(2)(A)  ||  Madras HC: Senior Citizens Act Applies Only To Post-2007 Property Transfers, Not Retrospective  ||  Supreme Court: Private Insurer Not Liable For Accident by Vehicle under State Requisition  ||  SC: Reserved Candidates Can Claim General Seats on Merit with Relaxation if Rules Allow  ||  SC: No Vested Right to Appointment For Next Candidate if Selected One Doesn't Join  ||  Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Rules State Cannot Be Judge in its Own Dispute Case  ||  Delhi HC: Girl Being Friendly on Valentine’s Day Does Not Justify Forced Sexual Activity under POCSO    

Greater Tzaneen Municipality vs. Bravospan - (07 Nov 2022)

The party who raises a plea of prescription bears the onus of proof

Civil

Present is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, granting the Respondent’s enrichment claim against the Appellant in an amount to be determined. The appeal is with the leave of the high court. The Appellant, Greater Tzaneen Municipality (the municipality) and the Respondent, concluded a Service Level Agreement (SLA) on 20 November 2013, pursuant to a competitive tender process. In terms of the SLA, Bravospan would render security services to the municipality for a period of 12 months from 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2014.

It is trite that, the party who raises a plea of prescription bears the onus of proof. As to the issue of prescription, the municipality failed to prove the date on which prescription commenced. In respect of the notice in terms of Section 3(2) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act, 2002, counsel for the municipality rightly conceded that the claim for unjust enrichment was not a ‘debt’ as defined in Section (1) of the Act because it was not a claim for damages. Therefore, the absence of a notice in terms of the Act did not bar the enrichment claim. Makgoba DJP’s order granting Bravospan’s claim for unjust enrichment was not sustainable in law as the law is yet to recognise a general enrichment action.

However, on the facts, it would be manifestly unjust for Bravospan to be afforded no compensation for the services that it had rendered to the municipality. It held that Bravospan should, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, be afforded compensation for the services rendered under the extension agreement as a just and equitable remedy under Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the services rendered to the Defendant during the period from 1 November 2014 to 31 October 2016 as a just and equitable remedy under Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution. The matter is referred back to the high court to determine the quantum of that compensation in accordance with the applicable law.

Tags : ENRICHMENT CLAIM   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved