Stellenbosch — The Public Record

Decisions, money, promises and services in Stellenbosch Local Municipality, 2021–2026. Sourced, classified, correctable.

Document SRC-3512

Deon Garden and Construction CC v Stellenbosch Municipality (9140/2021) [2026] ZAWCHC 504 (4 September 2026), Fortuin J

High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town · 4 September 2026 · judgment

Original address
https://lawlibrary.org.za/akn/za-wc/judgment/zawchc/2026/504/eng@2026-09-04
Retrieved
29 October 2026
Archived copy
An archived copy is held by the project
Why it matters
Primary record: court declared the municipality s 22 Sep 2020 cancellation of tender BSM 07/19 contract a breach/repudiation; damages dismissed (no loss proved); municipality to pay 75% of plaintiff costs; court criticised municipal conduct (para 95) and referred judgment to the Municipal Manager re MFMA s32/s62(1)(d).

Original document

Open the original ↗
Retrieved 29 October 2026.

Cited pinpoints: cover; paras 1-2paras 1, 5, 15-16paras 69, 72, 100, 108(a)paras 57, 84, 92, 101, 108(b)paras 106-108(c)-(d)paras 23, 95

No extracted text available for this document.

Claims citing this document

  • VerifiedEditor-approved Judgment in Deon Garden and Construction CC v Stellenbosch Municipality (case 9140/2021), [2026] ZAWCHC 504, was delivered by Fortuin J in the Western Cape Division of the High Court on 4 Sep 2026. Hearings were held on 2 Sep 2025, 5 Nov 2025, 24-25 Feb 2026 and 24 Mar 2026, and the merits were separated from quantum under Rule 33(4). (cover; paras 1-2)
  • VerifiedEditor-approved Figure: stage unknown The plaintiff claimed R4 374 192.67 (R3 955 405.52 in lost earnings and R418 787.15 in establishment costs) arising from the municipality's cancellation, on 22 Sep 2020, of a contract concluded on 30 May 2019 under tender BSM 07/19. The contract was for invasive alien vegetation clearing in WC024, with a panel of 13 contractors, and ran to 30 June 2021. (paras 1, 5, 15-16)
  • VerifiedEditor-approved The court declared that the municipality's cancellation by letter of 22 Sep 2020 was not authorised by the contract, constituted a breach, and was a repudiation. It found the contract had no express or tacit term allowing cancellation on withdrawal of DEA funding, and that the municipality was 'the deciding party' in the withdrawal of funding. (paras 69, 72, 100, 108(a))
  • VerifiedEditor-approved The plaintiff's damages claim was dismissed because it did not prove patrimonial loss for either lost earnings or establishment costs. The court found the contract guaranteed no quantum of work. (paras 57, 84, 92, 101, 108(b))
  • VerifiedEditor-approved The municipality was ordered to pay 75% of the plaintiff's taxed party-and-party costs, including the costs of the separated merits trial, with counsel's fees on scale B. Each party otherwise bears its own costs. (paras 106-108(c)-(d))
  • VerifiedEditor-approved Under the heading 'Accountability', the court criticised the municipality on six grounds: (1) it advertised and awarded the tender before concluding the funding agreement; (2) its officials withdrew contractors from the field before the funder acted; (3) its own letter of 8 Oct 2019 instructed the DEA to 'cancel the NRM project with immediate effect'; (4) it told the funder, inaccurately, that the contractors would continue to be used; (5) it left 13 contractors without work for a further eleven months before telling them; (6) it re-procured the same work on a new tender advertised before the cancellation letter. (paras 23, 95)

Used in investigations