Joburg agency to defend R4m invoice dispute at trial

Prest Business Supplies suffered a legal setback after its application for an immediate R4m payment from the Johannesburg Development Agency was dismissed, and the dispute must proceed to a full trial.

The dispute centred on unverified additional engineering services and conflicting fee calculations for the Rea Vaya Selby bus depot project.

The matter sat before acting Judge Jan Allen of the high court in Johannesburg, where Prest maintained that it performed additional services for the depot, including reassessing a former contractor’s work, preparing tender documents and conducting inspections.

“The defendant denies that the plaintiff performed additional services as per the agreement and also denies that it gave written instructions or approval or agreed in writing thereto,” Allen said.

The agency said Prest could not substantiate the additional work or fees at a meeting that took place on August 1 2025.

Prest was originally appointed to provide electrical and mechanical engineering consulting services for a fee of R3.4m.

Its appointment was extended until June 30 2025, with the scope and payment method unchanged.

In November 2024, the professional fee was adjusted to R6.5m, excluding VAT, subject to budget availability and satisfactory performance.

The disputed invoice charged R1,618,541 for electrical documentation and procurement, and R1,929,038 for mechanical documentation and procurement. With VAT included, it brought the total to R4,079,715.85.

“Neither the agreement nor the fee adjustment letter identifies the total value-based fee figures or the 10% factor as the agreed method as per the calculations in POC 6,” Allen said.

On proof of the services provided by Prest, Allen said: “There must be evidence of the work completed and the work listed in the invoice performed as per the invoice.”

Prest’s particulars of claim provided the invoice date of August 7 2025, though the invoice was dated March 27 2025. Correspondence confirmed it was sent in March.

The contract required written agreement on remuneration for additional services and written approval before such work began.

Prest would have to justify separate payment for work within its scope, or explain noncompliance with contractual requirements for additional services.

“It is not certain whether the work fell inside or outside the agreed scope of services. The defendant raised triable issues capable of determination at trial,” Allen said.

“Given that these are summary judgment proceedings, any doubt with regard to the issues raised must be to the benefit of the defendant, and I cannot grant summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.”