Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Homemaker’s Services Cannot Be Ignored in Compensation Due to Age  ||  Kerala High Court Directs Photos and Videos of Illegal Vehicle Modifications in Accident Reports  ||  Madras HC: Property Acquired by Catholic Priests Belongs to the Religious Society  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Marital Disability Cannot Be Used to Avoid Maintenance to Wife and Child  ||  Allahabad HC: Religious Freedom Does Not Confer a Right to a Specific Plot for Cemetery  ||  Allahabad HC: Dissatisfaction With Police Probe Alone Cannot Prove Wilful Neglect under SC/ST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Teachers Cannot Face Criminal Action for Trivial Classroom Discipline Measures  ||  Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits    

G Phadziri & Sons (Pty) Ltd vs Do Light Transport (Pty) Ltd and Another - (20 Feb 2023)

Clauses in which the annexures were mentioned had to be read not in isolation, but as part of the whole agreement

Contract

The issue in the appeal was whether an agreement concluded between the appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent was: (a) void for vagueness; and (b) necessitated a tacit term to be read into it as to its duration.

It is trite that a provision in a contract must be interpreted not only in the context of the contract as a whole, but also to give it a commercially sensible meaning. The clauses in which the annexures were mentioned had to be read not in isolation, but as part of the whole agreement. The high court was correct in holding that the tripartite agreement was not void for vagueness. This was because on any conceivable basis, when Phadziri invited Do Light to be its sub-contractor, both knew about the timetable for Do Light’s scheduled trips on the affected routes. It was therefore contrived for Phadziri to then suggest that the routes were not known, because the timetable was not attached to the tripartite agreement.

The parties seriously entered into the tripartite agreement and considered it capable of implementation, and, in fact, implemented it. Further, clauses 3.1 and 4.8 had to be read so as to give them, and the tripartite agreement, a commercially sensible meaning. Thus, the tripartite agreement had to be preserved and enforced. Turning to whether a tacit term was to be read into the agreement as to its duration, the Supreme Court held that the express duration term of the tripartite agreement had to be preserved and honoured. This was because, there was no evidence that the parties had meant for the duration of the tripartite agreement to be anything other than what it expressly said. Further, the term which Phadziri sought to impute into the agreement was in conflict with its express term as to its duration. It followed that the tripartite agreement was enforceable until the implementation of the integrated public transport services by the Department.

Tags : AGREEMENT   CLAUSES   IMPLEMENTATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved