The plaintiff municipality sued two defendants for damages arising from an electricity supply contract. The first defendant was the consulting electrical engineer appointed to supervise the works, and the second defendant was the electrical contractor awarded the tender. The plaintiff alleged that the second defendant supplied and installed defective cable joints contrary to the relevant specifications, and that the first defendant negligently failed properly to supervise the work. The contract was allegedly completed on or about 21 August 1990 and a completion certificate was issued by the first defendant. A cable later failed on 18 November 1993 due to water ingress through the cable joints, rendering 1 373 metres of cable unfit for use. The plaintiff claimed damages of R397 553,61 for removal and replacement costs. The second defendant had previously excepted to the particulars of claim on the basis that clauses 45 and 46 of the contract limited liability for defects to those manifesting during the one-year maintenance period after completion, and that exception was upheld. The plaintiff then sought to amend its particulars of claim to allege a tacit term that the second defendant would not knowingly depart from the contract or manufacturer’s specifications without disclosure to the first defendant, and to allege that the second defendant’s employees knowingly installed Raychem cable joints contrary to specification and concealed that fact, thereby fraudulently procuring the completion certificate.
The plaintiff was granted leave to amend its particulars of claim in accordance with the notice of amendment dated 27 January 1997. However, because an amendment is an indulgence and the second defendant’s opposition was not unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the amendment application, including the second defendant’s costs of opposition and the costs of two counsel where used.
A proposed amendment should be allowed where it is bona fide, raises a triable issue, and does not render the pleading excipiable. A tacit term is not impermissible if it is reasonably capable of a construction consistent with the express terms of the contract. Allegations that a contractor knowingly concealed non-compliance with specifications may, if proved, support a conclusion that a completion certificate was fraudulently procured, thereby preventing reliance on contractual limitation provisions tied to that certificate. Where an amendment elaborates the same debt already claimed, prescription is interrupted by the original process and the amendment does not introduce a new prescribed claim.
The court observed that it was unnecessary to decide whether the plaintiff could have pursued an independent delictual claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment alongside or instead of the contractual claim. The court also remarked generally that final certificates are not sacrosanct and may be challenged on limited grounds including fraud, and that mere delay in seeking an amendment is not by itself a basis to refuse it, save insofar as delay may bear on prejudice.
The case is significant for South African procedural law on amendments to pleadings. It illustrates that a court will permit an amendment introducing allegations of tacit term and fraud where the amended pleading is reasonably capable of sustaining a cause of action and raises triable issues. It also confirms that fraud may be pleaded as a basis for challenging a completion certificate and preventing a contractor from relying on contractual limitation provisions, while the underlying claim may still remain contractual. The judgment further applies the South African approach to prescription by focusing on whether the same debt is being pursued rather than whether the legal formulation has been refined.