CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

CMED (Pty) Ltd v Noord Civils (Pty) Ltd and Another

Citation[2024] ZAWCHC 206
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Law of ContractLaw of DelictCivil ProcedureConstruction LawProfessional Liability

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, CMED (Pty) Ltd, owned land in Langebaan, Western Cape, on which it planned to develop 52 residential erven known as 'The Oyster Catcher Phase 1 Development'. The plaintiff concluded two separate but interconnected contracts: (1) a building contract with the first defendant, Noord Civils (Pty) Ltd, for the construction of internal roads, engineering services, and related infrastructure for a total price of R 6,480,715.70; and (2) a professional services engineering contract with the second defendant, C-T-P Consulting Engineers CC, to provide consulting engineering services for design and construction supervision. The building contract incorporated the General Conditions of Contract for Construction Works (Third Edition, 2015) ('GCC'), under which the second defendant was to act as the 'Employer's Agent' responsible for administering the contract and certifying interim payments. Construction commenced on or about 17 August 2022. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant breached the building contract in numerous material respects, including construction of roads without adequate compaction tests, deviation from design and material specifications, and various other defective workmanship. The second defendant allegedly breached the engineering contract by failing to properly supervise the first defendant's work, being aware of defective workmanship but deliberately failing to intervene, and failing to demand that defective work be remedied. The first defendant also allegedly inflated interim payment claims and submitted claims for work outside the project scope. The plaintiff claimed damages of R 4,948,307.15 representing costs to rebuild roads, repair defective work, inflated interim payments, and amounts claimed for work not forming part of the project.

Legal Issues

  • Whether a 'whole agreement' clause in a written contract precludes reliance on a tacit term of that contract
  • Whether a claim for joint and several liability against two defendants who breached separate but interconnected contracts is legally sustainable
  • Whether questions of contractual interpretation should be decided on exception

Judicial Outcome

The second defendant's exception was dismissed with costs on scale C, payable by the second defendant to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

A 'whole agreement' or 'sole testimonial' clause in a written contract does not necessarily, of itself, exclude the existence of a tacit term. An established tacit term, whether actual or implied, forms part of the written contract and is 'read or blended into' it. Furthermore, where a building contractor and a professional engineer breach separate but interconnected contracts — the engineer's obligation being to supervise the contractor's work — they are independently liable for the same or similar damage, and the plaintiff may claim against both jointly and severally, though cannot recover damages twice over.

Obiter Dicta

The court observed that the nature of a tacit term is such that it is so self-evident it goes without saying, and noted the obviousness that the consulting engineers appointed for construction supervision would fulfil the functions of the 'Employer's Agent' as defined in the GCC. The court also noted that an exception which fails to expose the assailed cause of action as bad in law and fails to end the case does not achieve the purpose for which the exception procedure was designed.

Legal Significance

This judgment confirms and applies in the construction law context the principle from Van Immerzeel & Pohl v Samancor that a professional engineer and a building contractor can be held jointly liable for the same damage arising from separate but interconnected contractual breaches, particularly where the engineer's duty includes supervision of the contractor's work. It also clarifies the effect of 'whole agreement' clauses on tacit terms in written contracts, affirming that such clauses do not automatically preclude reliance on tacit terms, and reiterates that questions of contractual interpretation are generally not suitable for determination at the exception stage.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Explore More Cases

More Law of Contract cases

  • ABSA Bank Beperk v Pieter Hendrik Du Preez; ABSA Bank Beperk v Beyplas (Edms) Beperk[2007] ZASCA 67
  • Absa Bank Limited v Christina Martha Moore and Jacques Moore[2016] ZACC 34
  • Absa Bank Limited v Christina Martha Moore and Jacques Moore(20719/2014) [2015] ZASCA 171 (26 November 2015)
  • ACCA Zimbabwe v Cuthbert MunhupedziHH 232-21, HC 3522/20
  • Adam and Another v Moosa[2024] ZAWCHC 117
  • African Banking Corporation of Zambia Limited and Others v Mapula Solutions (Pty) Ltd(766/2024) [2025] ZASCA 38 (26 March 2026)
  • Andrew Kinloch Butters v Nomsa Virginia Mncora(181/2011) [2012] ZASCA 29 (28 March 2012)
  • Andric v Fourie[2024] ZAWCHC 95

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97