Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts
Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts: South African Law and Project Close-Out
Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts are disputes concerning the final calculation of the financial position between an employer and contractor once construction work has reached the relevant contractual stage of completion or the construction agreement has been terminated.
The final account should determine the ultimate adjusted contract value after taking account of the original contract sum, variations, remeasurement, provisional amounts, cost adjustments, contractual claims, penalties, damages, expense and loss, previous payments, retention and any other adjustments permitted by the applicable construction contract.
Although the concept appears straightforward, the final account is frequently one of the most contentious stages of a construction project.
During construction, individual disagreements can remain temporarily unresolved while progress continues. A disputed variation may be carried in a contractor’s records. An extension-of-time claim may remain under assessment. Quantities may still require final measurement. Contra-charges may be accumulating. Retention may remain withheld. By project close-out, those issues converge into a single financial reconciliation.
Under the JBCC Principal Building Agreement, the final account and final payment certificate are distinct contractual documents. JBCC’s published completion-and-payment guidance states that the final account must be prepared and, once accepted through the contractual process, the final payment certificate is issued by the principal agent. JBCC also warns that the procedures and time bars governing completion and payment should be strictly observed.
The JBCC Edition 6.2 payment-certificate form demonstrates the breadth of the final certification process. It provides for work executed, materials, authorised adjustments to the contract value, cost fluctuations, previous amounts certified, employer expense and loss, penalties, contractor damages, interest, advance payments and other adjustments before arriving at the final certified amount payable by one party to the other.
The legal consequences of final certification can be significant. South African courts have repeatedly treated properly issued payment certificates as creating enforceable payment obligations, subject to the wording of the applicable contract and any recognised contractual or legal challenge. More recent judgments continue to demonstrate that parties should not regard certification as an informal accounting exercise that can simply be ignored when the result becomes inconvenient.
Relevant long-tail search concepts include final account construction South Africa, JBCC final account dispute, final payment certificate South Africa, construction variation dispute, contra-charges construction contract, construction retention payment, final account valuation, JBCC payment certificate dispute, construction final account claim, and contractor final payment dispute.
Why Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts Arise
Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts frequently arise because the final account is not merely a summary of amounts already agreed.
It is often the point at which previously unresolved commercial and contractual issues must finally be quantified.
Consider a project originally awarded for R100 million.
During construction, the employer instructs additional works. Some variations are formally priced, while others are disputed. Certain bill quantities increase. The contractor claims additional preliminaries arising from an extension of time. The employer levies penalties for a different period of alleged contractor delay. The employer also claims the cost of repairing defective work, while the contractor disputes both liability and the amount of the proposed contra-charge.
The contract sum may still appear to be R100 million in the original agreement, but the true final contractual value might be materially higher or lower.
The final account must reconcile those competing adjustments.
Final account disputes therefore tend to concern four separate questions.
The first is whether a particular item is contractually recoverable at all.
The second is how the item must be valued.
The third is whether the prescribed claim, notice, certification or valuation procedure was followed.
The fourth is whether an earlier determination, certificate, adjudication or settlement has already resolved the issue.
A contractor might establish that additional work was performed but still fail to establish a right to additional payment because the contract’s variation or claims machinery was not satisfied.
Conversely, an employer may genuinely have incurred remedial expenditure but may be unable simply to deduct it from the final account unless the contract authorises that adjustment and the necessary procedural requirements were followed.
This is why final account preparation is both an accounting exercise and a contractual exercise.
What Goes Into a Construction Final Account?
The exact composition of a final account depends upon the contract.
There is no single statutory South African final-account template applicable to every project.
Under JBCC, the final account reflects the contract value of the works at final completion or termination, and the final payment mechanism subsequently translates the adjusted contractual position into the amount actually due between employer and contractor. A South African judgment has expressly recorded the JBCC definition of a final account as the document prepared by the principal agent reflecting the contract value of the works at final completion or termination.
The reconciliation will commonly begin with the original contract sum.
The next stage is to account for authorised changes to the work.
Variations may increase or decrease the contract value. Provisional sums may be replaced with the actual contractual valuation of work instructed against them. Bills of quantities may require adjustment where the contract is remeasurable. Prime-cost or budgetary allowances may need reconciliation. Fluctuation provisions may affect the contract value.
Time-related claims may then need to be addressed.
Where the contractor has established entitlement to additional preliminaries, general items, expense and loss or damages, those amounts may enter the final financial calculation.
Employer claims can also affect the outcome.
Depending upon the contract, penalties, expense and loss, amounts recoverable for defective work, advance-payment recoveries and other employer entitlements may be incorporated into the certification process.
Previous payments must then be deducted.
Retention or security adjustments must be treated in accordance with the contract.
Tax consequences must also be reflected correctly.
The JBCC Edition 6.2 payment-certificate form expressly provides a structured mechanism for many of these adjustments, illustrating why a final payment certificate should be understood as the end result of a wider reconciliation rather than simply the contractor’s last invoice.
This distinction is commercially important.
The contractor’s final account submission is not necessarily the contractual final account.
Likewise, the contractor’s final invoice is not automatically the final payment certificate.
The rights and obligations of the parties must be identified from the particular construction agreement.
Variations and Remeasurement in Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts
Variations are among the most common causes of Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts.
The dispute may concern whether a variation was validly instructed, whether work genuinely fell outside the original scope, which rates apply, whether new rates are justified, whether quantities were measured correctly or whether additional time-related costs flow from the change.
The existence of additional physical work does not answer all of these questions.
A contractor should begin by identifying the instruction or contractual event that changed the original scope.
The instruction should then be linked to drawings, specifications, site records and measurement information.
Valuation should follow the hierarchy prescribed by the contract.
Where work is of similar character and performed under similar conditions, existing contract rates may apply. Where the work is materially different, the agreement may permit adjusted or new rates. Dayworks may be permitted for particular work where their procedural requirements have been met.
Remeasurement creates a different type of final account issue.
Under a remeasurement contract, the tendered bill quantity may not represent the final amount paid. The actual measured quantity executed in accordance with the contract may determine the eventual value.
That means the final account can change substantially without any “variation” in the ordinary sense.
The parties should therefore distinguish a changed quantity under the original scope from a genuine change to scope.
This distinction affects contractual procedure and valuation.
South African construction disputes repeatedly demonstrate that variation and payment entitlements are determined through the particular contract rather than general fairness. The final account should consequently maintain an auditable connection between each adjustment and the contractual provision supporting it.
A useful variation register should identify the instruction, date, scope, valuation status, contractor quotation, principal-agent or engineer determination, amount previously certified, amount disputed and final agreed or determined amount.
Attempting to recreate that information for the first time at the end of a three-year project is a common source of final account failure.
Contra-Charges, Penalties and Retention
Employer deductions are another major source of final account controversy.
The construction industry often uses the expression contra-charge to describe an amount the employer or main contractor seeks to deduct because it has incurred expenditure said to be the responsibility of the contractor or subcontractor.
The label itself does not establish entitlement.
The employer must identify the contractual basis for the deduction.
An employer may, for example, have incurred the cost of appointing another contractor to repair defective work after the original contractor failed to rectify following proper notice.
That expenditure may be recoverable if the contract permits it and the contractual preconditions have been met.
A different outcome may follow where the employer unilaterally appoints another contractor without giving the original contractor the contractual opportunity to rectify.
The reasonableness and causation of the amount can also be disputed.
If defective tiling could reasonably have been repaired for R200,000 but the employer replaces the entire finish with a premium product costing R800,000, the full R800,000 does not automatically become recoverable merely because it appears on a supplier invoice.
Penalties require separate analysis.
The employer should establish the operative contractual completion date after properly allowing for any valid extension of time. Penalties should then be calculated in accordance with the contract and applicable South African law.
Retention is different again.
Retention is normally security withheld from payments rather than a permanent employer deduction.
Its release is governed by the construction agreement and the relevant completion milestones.
South African case law reflects the contractual significance of retention mechanisms. For example, Johnny Bravo Construction CC v Khato Consulting Engineers CC recorded a GCC arrangement where half the retention became payable following practical completion, illustrating how the release of retained money depends upon the particular contract.
Similarly, Maphephethe Electrical CC v Thusanang Gast (Pty) Ltd considered subcontract retention in circumstances where ultimate release depended upon completion steps under the principal contract.
The final account should therefore distinguish true valuation adjustments from amounts merely held as security.
Final Payment Certificates in Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts
One of the most important distinctions in Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts is the difference between the final account and the final payment certificate.
The final account determines the adjusted contractual value.
The final payment certificate ordinarily identifies the resulting amount due for payment after application of the contract’s certification mechanism.
Under JBCC Edition 6.2, the standard payment-certificate form records that the principal agent certifies the stated positive or negative amount as due and payable by the contractual payment date.
South African courts have historically treated final payment certificates seriously.
In Ocean Diners (Pty) Ltd v Golden Hill Construction CC, the Appellate Division dealt with a final certificate issued by the architect under a building contract. The case became important authority for the binding effect attributable to final certification under the contractual wording there in issue. Later South African cases have repeatedly cited Ocean Diners in payment-certificate disputes.
In Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stocks Mavundla Zek Joint Venture, the Supreme Court of Appeal dealt with the enforceability of amounts certified under a JBCC construction contract. The decision is frequently relied upon for the proposition that a payment certificate issued by the employer’s authorised agent can constitute a liquid document and an enforceable payment obligation in accordance with the contract.
The same principle appears in more recent cases.
In Inyatsi Construction SA Ltd v National Department of Public Works, decided in December 2024, the High Court recorded that a final payment certificate issued and certified by the employer’s principal agent served as a liquid document.
More recently, Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Fikeni AO on appeal in 2025 concerned whether an employer could withhold payment under a JBCC final payment certificate because defects had been identified. The appeal squarely addressed the enforceability of final certification notwithstanding the separate existence of defect issues.
The practical lesson is important.
Once the contractual process has reached final certification, an employer should not simply treat the certificate as a negotiating proposal.
Equally, a contractor should not assume that every document labelled a certificate is necessarily valid and enforceable.
Its contractual issue, authority, content and status must be examined.
The Principal Agent’s Role in Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts
The principal agent occupies an important position in JBCC final-account administration.
The employer appoints the principal agent, but the contractual functions allocated to that office can bind the employer.
South African courts have long recognised the unusual position of construction certifiers.
In Multiminds 186 CC t/a Cooling Solutions v E’tsho Civils (Pty) Ltd, the court referred to the substantial contractual powers surrendered by an employer to its principal agent, including powers concerning approval of work, variations, extensions of time and the amounts to be certified in interim or final payment certificates.
In Hyde Construction CC v Blue Cloud Investments 40 (Pty) Ltd, the Western Cape High Court considered the principal agent’s contractual role concerning the correctness of a final account and final payment certificate under a JBCC agreement and described the relevant determination function in quasi-arbitral terms.
That does not mean that every act of a principal agent is beyond challenge.
The agent must act within the powers conferred by the contract.
The certificate must be issued in terms of the agreement.
The correct contractual procedure should be followed.
Where a party contends that the agent lacked authority, acted fraudulently or failed to comply with an essential contractual requirement, different legal consequences may arise.
However, dissatisfaction with the amount certified does not ordinarily justify simply ignoring the certificate.
The dispute-resolution provisions should be used.
The principal agent should therefore maintain a defensible audit trail during preparation of the final account.
Where a variation is reduced, the basis should be recorded.
Where an employer deduction is included, the contractual provision and supporting documents should be identified.
Where a contractor claim is rejected, the reasons should be clear.
A final account containing unexplained lump-sum deductions invites dispute.
Resolving Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts
Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts should be addressed through the dispute-resolution machinery agreed by the parties.
Depending on the agreement, that may involve disagreement notices, adjudication, arbitration or litigation.
JBCC contracts commonly use adjudication mechanisms designed to produce an interim binding result that must be complied with unless and until it is overturned through the further dispute process prescribed by the agreement.
South African courts have repeatedly enforced this “comply now, argue later” approach where the relevant contract requires it.
In Grenco Projects and Construction CC v Hermanus Esplanade Development Company (Pty) Ltd, the Western Cape High Court considered disputed JBCC payment certificates and pending arbitration in the context of liquidation proceedings. The judgment illustrates both the contractual significance of payment certification and the need to distinguish enforcement of construction rights from the separate requirements of insolvency proceedings.
In Pro-Khaya Construction CC v City of Cape Town, decided in August 2025, an adjudicator’s determination required, among other relief, preparation of a final payment certificate reflecting a determined final-account amount exceeding R8 million plus VAT. The Western Cape High Court enforced the adjudicator’s determination and rejected the City’s challenge.
That decision is particularly useful for final-account disputes because it demonstrates the importance of following the dispute machinery once disagreements about valuation, extensions of time and the final account have crystallised.
A party that receives an adverse determination should immediately identify the contractual period for giving a notice of dissatisfaction or taking the next required step.
Missing that deadline can materially change the legal position.
Where litigation is the agreed mechanism, a valid final payment certificate may substantially simplify the contractor’s cause of action because the litigation may focus on the certified debt rather than requiring every underlying variation to be proved afresh.
The exact contract remains decisive.
Prescription and Final Account Claims
Final-account negotiations can continue for years.
That creates prescription risk.
Under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, most ordinary debts prescribe after three years, subject to the Act’s specific provisions and exceptions. Section 12 deals with when prescription begins to run, while sections 14 and 15 regulate interruption through acknowledgment of liability and service of process respectively.
Construction parties should not assume that ongoing final-account discussions automatically stop prescription.
Nor should a contractor assume that an internal certification or adjudication process necessarily postpones prescription until every contractual process has been exhausted.
The relevant cause of action and the point at which the debt became due must be analysed.
This issue has reached the Supreme Court of Appeal in the construction context.
In Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, the SCA dealt with prescription of additional-payment claims arising from a major construction contract. The case demonstrates the danger of assuming that the existence of ongoing contractual procedures automatically prevents prescription from running against accrued monetary claims.
The safest practice is to maintain a prescription schedule for all material final-account claims.
Each unresolved variation, damages claim, prolongation claim and certified payment should be assessed independently.
A contractual deadline for submitting a claim and a statutory prescription date are not the same thing.
Both require attention.
Evidence Needed for Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts
The outcome of Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts often depends less on the size of the claim than on the quality of the project records.
A final account should be reconstructable.
For each adjustment, an independent reader should be able to identify the contractual basis, instruction or event, supporting measurement, valuation methodology, amount previously certified, amount now claimed and current status.
For variations, relevant evidence includes instructions, drawings, quotations, agreed rates, daywork records, measurement sheets, photographs and correspondence.
For extension-of-time and prolongation costs, the record should include notices, programmes, determinations, site establishment information, payroll evidence, plant records and the calculation of time-related amounts.
For employer contra-charges, the file should contain the notice given to the contractor, evidence of the underlying default, opportunity to rectify where required, third-party quotations, invoices and proof that the remedial cost was reasonably incurred.
For penalties, the employer should maintain the contractual completion-date history and every extension-of-time determination.
For retention, the project team should be able to identify the original retention percentage, any cap, reduction milestones, amount previously released and contractual event triggering final release.
The account should also reconcile all previous payment certificates.
A surprisingly common dispute arises not from entitlement but from arithmetic: an amount is certified twice, omitted entirely or deducted in both a previous certificate and the final account.
A spreadsheet alone is insufficient if nobody can establish where its figures originated.
The final account should therefore be supported by a document index and cross-reference system.
Where the account is large, separating the uncontested and disputed amounts can also assist resolution.
The parties may be able to agree 90% of the final account while reserving ten identified issues for adjudication or arbitration.
That approach improves cash flow and narrows legal costs.
Conclusion: Effective Final Account Close-Out
A final account should not be treated as an administrative task left until everybody who understood the project has moved on.
Its preparation begins during construction.
Every variation register, progress measurement, extension-of-time determination, payment certificate and contra-charge eventually feeds into the final reconciliation.
The strongest contractor final account is one built progressively from contemporaneous project records.
The strongest employer assessment is equally transparent: deductions and reductions should be linked to contractual provisions and evidence rather than introduced as unexplained commercial adjustments at project close-out.
The distinction between the final account and final payment certificate is particularly important under JBCC.
The account determines the adjusted contract value through the contractual process, while the final payment certificate identifies the resulting certified amount due between the parties. JBCC’s published materials treat these as formal contractual processes and emphasise compliance with the applicable completion and payment procedures.
South African case law gives significant legal effect to properly issued payment certificates.
Decisions including Ocean Diners, Joob Joob, Inyatsi and the more recent Group Five v Fikeni litigation demonstrate that certification can create immediate and substantial payment consequences.
Where the final account is disputed, the solution is therefore ordinarily not to ignore the contractual machinery.
The parties should identify the exact disputed items, comply with the applicable notice requirements and use the agreed adjudication, arbitration or litigation process.
They should also monitor prescription independently of the contractual process.
A disciplined final account process can transform project close-out from an open-ended commercial argument into a defined reconciliation of contractual rights and liabilities.
What Are Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts?
Final Account Disputes in Construction Contracts concern disagreement about the ultimate financial reconciliation between employer and contractor at completion or termination.
They may involve variations, remeasurement, additional-payment claims, penalties, contra-charges, retention, previous certificates, damages and other adjustments permitted by the contract.
The final account should therefore reflect the adjusted contractual value rather than simply repeat the original tender price.
What Is a Final Account Under JBCC?
Under the JBCC framework, the final account is the document prepared through the contractual close-out mechanism that reflects the final contract value after applicable adjustments.
A South African judgment has recorded the JBCC definition as a document prepared by the principal agent reflecting the contract value of the works at final completion or termination.
The applicable JBCC edition and project amendments should always be checked.
What Is the Difference Between a Final Account and a Final Payment Certificate?
The final account calculates the final adjusted value of the construction work.
The final payment certificate is the contractual certification of the resulting amount due for payment after the required adjustments and previous payments have been taken into account.
Under JBCC Edition 6.2, the principal agent certifies the final positive or negative amount as due and payable through the prescribed payment certificate.
Can an Employer Refuse to Pay a Final Payment Certificate?
An employer should not assume that it may simply withhold a properly certified amount because it disputes aspects of the underlying account.
The contractual dispute process must be considered.
South African courts have repeatedly treated payment certificates as enforceable obligations under construction contracts. Inyatsi Construction specifically recorded that the final payment certificate before the Court served as a liquid document.
The 2025 Group Five v Fikeni appeal also directly addressed an attempt to resist final-certified payment because of defects.
Can Variations Be Claimed for the First Time in the Final Account?
This depends upon the construction contract.
Many contracts contain notice, quotation, valuation or claims requirements that apply when a variation arises.
A contractor should not assume that waiting until the final account automatically preserves an entitlement that may already have been lost through failure to comply with contractual requirements.
Variations should therefore be notified and valued contemporaneously wherever possible.
What Is a Contra-Charge in a Construction Final Account?
A contra-charge is an industry expression commonly used for an amount the employer or main contractor seeks to recover from another contracting party, often for remedial work, damage, cleaning, completion work or another alleged default.
The description “contra-charge” does not itself establish a right of deduction.
The party making the deduction must identify the applicable contractual entitlement and comply with any notice, assessment or recovery procedure required by the agreement.
When Is Retention Payable to a Contractor?
The answer depends upon the contract.
Retention is generally released in stages linked to completion milestones rather than becoming an employer saving.
South African cases dealing with both main contracts and subcontracts show that entitlement to retained amounts depends on the completion and release provisions actually agreed by the parties.
Can a Principal Agent Change a Final Payment Certificate?
The answer requires analysis of the particular contract and the nature of the alleged correction.
South African authority has treated final certificates as carrying substantial binding force, particularly where the contract gives them final or conclusive effect.
Ocean Diners remains an important authority concerning a final certificate and the inability of the certifier simply to withdraw it in the circumstances of that case.
A party disputing a certificate should therefore use the contractual challenge procedure rather than assuming that the principal agent can informally cancel and replace it.
Can Final Account Disputes Be Referred to Adjudication?
Yes, where the construction agreement provides for adjudication of the relevant dispute.
JBCC disputes frequently proceed through adjudication before any later arbitration or litigation.
In Pro-Khaya Construction v City of Cape Town, the adjudicator determined substantial final-account and related claims, and the High Court subsequently enforced the determination.
The contractual referral and notice requirements must nevertheless be complied with.
Does a Final Payment Certificate Count as a Liquid Document?
South African courts have repeatedly recognised that qualifying construction payment certificates may constitute liquid documents because they are issued by the employer’s authorised agent and certify an amount due.
Joob Joob and later decisions have applied this principle, and Inyatsi Construction expressly treated the final payment certificate in that matter as a liquid document.
Whether a particular certificate has that effect still depends upon its validity and the applicable contractual terms.
Can Final Account Claims Prescribe?
Yes.
Construction claims are subject to the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
Most ordinary debts are subject to the three-year period contained in section 11(d), subject to the remaining provisions of the Act.
Parties should not assume that negotiations concerning a final account automatically interrupt prescription.
What Documents Are Needed for a Final Account Dispute?
The core documents normally include the executed construction contract, contract data and amendments, bill of quantities, drawings, variation instructions, measurement records, quotations, payment certificates, extension-of-time claims and determinations, retention calculations, penalty calculations, contra-charge records, invoices and correspondence.
The documentation should allow each adjustment in the final account to be traced to its contractual and factual basis.
What Should a Contractor Do If the Final Account Is Too Low?
The contractor should identify each disputed adjustment individually rather than merely reject the total.
It should state the contractual basis for its entitlement, provide the relevant supporting records and issue any required contractual disagreement or dispute notice within the prescribed period.
If the dispute remains unresolved, it should be referred through the applicable adjudication, arbitration or litigation mechanism before any time bar or prescription period expires.
References
| Legal authority | Substance | Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Ocean Diners (Pty) Ltd v Golden Hill Construction CC (436/91) [1993] ZASCA 41; 1993 (3) SA 331 (A) | The Appellate Division dealt with enforcement of a final certificate issued by an architect under a building agreement and rejected the attempted withdrawal of the certificate in the circumstances of that contract. | The case is foundational authority concerning the binding significance that a final construction certificate can have. It illustrates why an employer or certifier cannot necessarily disregard final certification because an error or later disagreement is alleged. |
| Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stocks Mavundla Zek Joint Venture (161/08) [2009] ZASCA 23; 2009 (5) SA 1 (SCA) | The SCA considered payment certificates issued under a JBCC building agreement and upheld enforcement of certified amounts. | The judgment is an important South African authority on the status of payment certificates and the principal agent’s certification powers under JBCC. It is frequently cited for the treatment of payment certificates as liquid documents representing certified indebtedness. |
| Hyde Construction CC v Blue Cloud Investments 40 (Pty) Ltd and Another (8293/10) [2011] ZAWCHC 304 | The Western Cape High Court examined JBCC final-account and final-payment-certificate procedures, including the principal agent’s role when the correctness of those documents is disputed. | The case illustrates that a final account is produced and challenged through a defined contractual mechanism and that the principal agent performs significant determination functions within that machinery. |
| Officescape Interior Contractors v Waymark Infotech (Pty) Ltd (1344/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 152 | The contractor sought payment based on a JBCC final payment certificate, while the employer disputed the certificate and raised defective-work and certification issues. | The matter illustrates the potentially powerful legal consequences of a final payment certificate and the importance of challenging certification through legally sustainable grounds rather than merely asserting dissatisfaction with the underlying work. |
| Multiminds 186 CC t/a Cooling Solutions v E’tsho Civils (Pty) Ltd and Another (3023/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 40 | The Court described the substantial powers allocated to the principal agent in the building-contract framework, including valuation of variations, extension-of-time matters and payment certification. | It demonstrates why the principal agent’s assessment of the final account cannot be treated as a purely clerical act. The agent’s contractual determinations can bind the employer and materially affect the final financial position. |
| Inyatsi Construction SA Limited v National Department of Public Works and Another (2165/19) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1365 | The High Court dealt with recovery under a final payment certificate issued by the employer’s principal agent and held that the certificate served as a liquid document. | This recent authority confirms the continuing legal significance attributed to properly issued final payment certificates in South African construction law. |
| Grenco Projects and Construction CC v Hermanus Esplanade Development Co (Pty) Ltd (4260/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 172; 2024 (6) SA 500 (WCC) | The case concerned JBCC payment certificates, adjudication and pending arbitration in the context of an application for liquidation. | The judgment illustrates both the interim enforceability issues surrounding construction certificates and the separate requirement that insolvency proceedings should not be used improperly to enforce genuinely disputed debts. |
| Pro-Khaya Construction CC v City of Cape Town and Another (9103/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 353 | The Western Cape High Court enforced an adjudicator’s determination that included a final-account amount of R8,095,536.22 plus VAT and required issue of a corresponding final payment certificate. | The case is important recent authority on enforcement of construction adjudication and demonstrates how final-account disputes may be conclusively administered through the contractual dispute mechanism unless and until properly overturned. |
| Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Fikeni and Others (A2024/091672) [2025] ZAGPJHC 839 | The appeal concerned whether a JBCC final payment certificate remained enforceable where defects had been identified at final completion and the employer sought to withhold payment pending rectification. | The case is particularly relevant to the distinction between the contractual obligation to honour final certification and separate rights concerning defective work. It reinforces the need to administer payment and defects through the mechanisms actually provided by the contract. |
| Prescription Act 68 of 1969, particularly sections 11, 12, 14 and 15 | The Act establishes periods of extinctive prescription, regulates when prescription begins and provides mechanisms for interruption through acknowledgment or judicial process. | Final-account negotiations may continue for lengthy periods. The Act is therefore critical because unresolved variations, damages claims and certified debts may prescribe even while project close-out discussions continue. |
| JBCC Principal Building Agreement Edition 6.2 and JBCC Payment Certificate | JBCC establishes contractual mechanisms for preparation of the final account and certification of the final amount due. The standard payment form provides for work executed, adjustments, penalties, damages, interest and previous payments. | For projects using JBCC, these provisions form the primary contractual framework for final account preparation and payment. The executed edition and all project amendments must nevertheless be checked. |
Useful Links
JBCC – Guide to Completion and Payment provides official JBCC guidance on completion, final-account and payment procedures. It is particularly useful for principal agents, quantity surveyors, contractors and employers administering the final stages of a JBCC building project.
JBCC – Free Forms provides access to standard JBCC administrative forms, including documents used in the payment and completion process. These forms are useful for ensuring that project close-out documentation follows the JBCC structure.
Southern African Legal Information Institute provides free access to South African judgments concerning final payment certificates, construction adjudication, contractual claims and prescription.
If you would like to know more about construction tenders click here.
If you would like to know more about bid disqualification risks click here
If you would like to know more about certificates of completion click here.
If you would like to know more about retention amounts, click here.
If you would like to know more about how to prevent subcontractor disputes click here.
This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for errors, omissions, loss, or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Don’t hesitate to contact Meyer and Partners Attorneys Incorporated if you require further information or specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).