F. B. Choppy (Pty) Ltd v Nsj Construction (Pty) Ltd (SCA 6 of 2011) [2012] SCCA 14 (31 August 2012)

F. B. Choppy (Pty) Ltd v Nsj Construction (Pty) Ltd (SCA 6 of 2011) [2012] SCCA 14 (31 August 2012)

The appeal was allowed because the record did not support that Civil Side No. 29 of 2010 (the counterclaim) was ever properly referred to arbitration, and the Supreme Court erred in consolidating and disposing of both cases without proper procedure. All orders in both cases were vacated and a fresh trial ordered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] SCCA 14
Parties
Appellant: F. B. Choppy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: NSJ Construction (Pty) Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
31 August 2012
Case Number
SCA 6 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Without Clause, Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Consolidation of Suits, Errors in Arbitral Award
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Arbitration Contract Law Arbitration Without Clause Setting Aside Arbitral Award Consolidation of Suits Errors in Arbitral Award

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. B. Choppy (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

NSJ Construction (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court erred in referring matters to arbitration without an arbitration clause
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral award contained obvious errors justifying setting aside or modification
  3. 3 Whether both Civil Side No. 27 of 2010 and Civil Side No. 29 of 2010 were properly consolidated and referred to arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the record did not support that Civil Side No. 29 of 2010 (the counterclaim) was ever properly referred to arbitration, and the Supreme Court erred in consolidating and disposing of both cases without proper procedure. All orders in both cases were vacated and a fresh trial ordered before a different judge.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • All orders made by the Supreme Court in Civil Side No. 27 of 2010 and Civil Side No. 29 of 2010 are vacated.
  • A fresh trial is to be conducted before a different judge with both cases consolidated and heard together.