Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

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