What happened
The Mopani District Municipality appointed Makasela Consulting to a pool of approved engineering suppliers for 2017 to 2020. The pool appointment set a general framework under which professional fees, when engineers were later appointed to projects, would not exceed rates the municipality determined with reference to the Engineering Council's fee guideline, which the municipality read as an 8 per cent cap.
In May 2018 the municipality appointed Makasela, on risk, to do a feasibility study for a water scheme. The appointment letter said the fee would be 17.5 per cent of construction costs, payable once the technical report and business plan were approved by the funder, and nothing at all if they were not. Makasela did the work; the report was approved in May 2019; at 17.5 per cent it was owed R9.6 million.
The municipality said it would pay 8 per cent and asked for an invoice in that amount. Makasela invoiced R4.4 million, which was paid, and then sued for the R5.2 million balance. The High Court held the parties were bound by the 8 per cent cap. The Full Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Makasela had acquiesced in the lower fee. The Supreme Court of Appeal refused special leave. Makasela applied to the President of that court for reconsideration under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
What the court held
In Makasela Consulting and Projects (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality [2026] ZASCA 131, handed down on 30 September 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal granted reconsideration, set aside its own refusal of special leave, granted special leave with costs, and replaced the Full Court's order with one upholding the appeal.
On the contract: where a general framework is followed by a specific appointment that expressly regulates the subject in dispute, the specific terms cannot be emptied of content by reverting to the general framework. The guideline remained relevant context but could not detract from the fee the parties had expressly agreed. The appointment was on risk, and the fee was the agreed 17.5 per cent.
On the invoice: accepting the municipality's instruction and invoicing the amount it was prepared to process did not by itself show an intention to cancel, novate or compromise the remuneration formula already agreed. The invoice and the receipt of R4.4 million did not establish that Makasela abandoned the balance.
On reconsideration: the requirement is a likelihood of a grave failure of justice, or of the administration of justice being brought into disrepute, if the refusal stands. The case raised a material question about the interaction between a general professional-services framework, a later risk-based appointment and a subsequent instruction, and the interests of justice favoured reconsideration.
What it means for your practice
For commercial and construction practitioners, the contract holding is the one to keep. A panel or framework agreement sets the stage; a later project-specific appointment that states its own fee governs that project. Clients who are told by a public body that "the framework caps you" should be advised to look at what the specific appointment says before conceding.
The waiver holding matters to anyone who has advised a client to "invoice what they will pay for now and fight for the rest later". The court held that doing so, without more, is not a cancellation, novation or compromise. The safer course remains a reservation of rights on the invoice, but the absence of one was not fatal here.
For litigators, section 17(2)(f) is the rare door. Reconsideration by the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal after special leave has been refused is granted on a high threshold, and this judgment restates it and shows a case that met it: a clean point of law of general application on which the courts below had gone wrong.
What to do on your files
On any claim for professional fees against an organ of state, assemble the sequence of documents in date order and identify the one that expressly fixes the fee for the work in dispute. That document, not the framework, is the claim.
Where a client has been paid part of a fee on the paying party's terms, do not assume the balance is lost. Plead the specific appointment, plead that the invoice was rendered at the payer's instruction, and put the payer to proof of a novation or compromise.
Where special leave has been refused on a point of law that affects a class of contracts, consider the reconsideration application under section 17(2)(f) before advising the client that the road has ended. It is seldom granted; this judgment is the current example of when it is.
This note is drawn from the Supreme Court of Appeal's own media summary, which does not form part of the judgment; read the judgment before relying on it.
Source: Makasela Consulting and Projects (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality (773/2024) [2026] ZASCA 131, Supreme Court of Appeal, 30 September 2026. The court's media summary: https://www.supremecourtofappeal.org.za/images/SCA2026-131ms.pdf