Agreement And Schedule Of Conditions Of Building Contract Namibia

For these reasons, our client cannot assume any responsibility for the outstanding amounts that Lofty`s Construction (Pty) Ltd must pay to the subcontractors concerned. Accordingly, all subcontractors are invited to seek payment directly from liquidators who can be contacted at the following address: In view of the respondent`s explicit denial of responsibility for the Medi Clinic project transactions, the applicant stated that it had become necessary to take legal action to determine its rights under the contract between the parties. In this case, the agreement between the parties provides for the resolution of disputes relating to mediation and, if not, the reference to arbitration. (para. 38). The dispute between the parties concerns the validity of the arbitration agreement. In the case of Allied Mineral Development Co. (Pty) Ltd. v Gemsbok Vlei Kwartsiet (Edms.) Bpk., 1968 (1) SA 7 (CPD) in S. 14B-H, it was found that the arbitration clauses in this case do not provide for a dispute over the validity of the agreement that should be referred to arbitration. I think this also has the effect of Article 38 of the agreement, although Article 38.8 provides that the termination of the contract with respect to clauses 35 to 37 does not affect clause 38. These clauses relate respectively to the revocation of the contract for delay by the subcontractor (point 35), the revocation of the main contract (point 36) and the revocation of the subcontract due to certain delays on the part of the contractor or employer (point 38). These clauses do not cover this litigation.

However, the parties could delegate such jurisdiction to the arbitrator by separate agreement. Accordingly, Mr. Heathcote argued that if proceedings had been initiated in a court of law, the case would have taken its course and that no plea would have been made in favour of a stay. That may be the case, but the fact that there are other remedies than a bill of rights is only one factor that a Court can consider in deciding whether to exercise its discretion in favour of granting a bill of rights. However, it does not rule out granting such a decision. (See Safari Reservations Ltd. v Zululand Safaris (Pty) Ltd., 1966 (4) SA 165 (DCLD) on p. 171F.) In the previous case, it was also held that a right to exemption is not a right to cover a declaration decision. I do not think the documents indicated that Lofty was an interested party, as noted above, and that the judge did not.

The applicant has always stated that it considers or suspects that there was a joint venture between the respondent and Lofty`s. Moreover, it is never in a position to determine the details of the contractual arrangements between the respondent and Lofty`s. In conclusion, it was said that the question of whether the respondent and the parties to Vonlofty were partners or parts of a joint venture or had another contractual agreement was not their concern.

Comments are closed.