CD Development Co (East Rand) (Pty) Ltd v Novick 1979 (2) SA 546 (C)

CD Development Co (East Rand) (Pty) Ltd v Novick 1979 (2) SA 546 (C)

Issue: Whether a party can recover payments made under duress.

Facts:

CD Development Co (East Rand) (Pty) Ltd (CD Development) was a company that supplied water to Novick, a property owner. In 1966, CD Development increased the water tariff, claiming that it was necessary to cover rising costs. Novick objected to the increase, arguing that it was unreasonable and that CD Development had not provided sufficient justification for the increase.

Despite its objections, Novick continued to pay the increased tariff under protest, fearing that if it did not, CD Development would cut off its water supply.

In 1969, Novick sued CD Development for a refund of the money it had paid under protest, arguing that it had been forced to make the payments under duress.

CD Development argued that Novick was not entitled to a refund because it had not been under duress. They claimed that Novick had always had the option to challenge the tariff increase in court and that it had not been forced to pay the increased tariff simply because it was afraid of having its water supply cut off.

Held:

The Court held that Novick was entitled to a refund of the money it had paid under protest. The Court reasoned that Novick had been under duress when it paid the increased tariff. The court also found that CD Development had been aware of Novick's objections to the tariff increase and that it had not acted in good faith when it refused to refund the money.

Key Facts:

• A property owner paid increased water tariffs under protest.
• The property owner sued the water supplier for a refund of the money it had paid under protest, arguing that it had been forced to make the payments under duress.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the property owner was entitled to a refund of the money it had paid under protest.
• The Court reasoned that the property owner had been under duress when it paid the increased tariff.
• The court also found that the water supplier had been aware of the property owner's objections to the tariff increase and that it had not acted in good faith when it refused to refund the money.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in CD Development Co (East Rand) (Pty) Ltd v Novick 1979 (2) SA 546 (C) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision made it clear that a party can recover payments made under duress.