Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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