Basadi Baitsosa Consultants and Projects CC v South African Forestry Company SOC Ltd (29193/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 387 (18 June 2021)

Basadi Baitsosa Consultants and Projects CC v South African Forestry Company SOC Ltd (29193/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 387 (18 June 2021)

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as it had not referred any dispute to arbitration nor formulated the disputes in accordance with the contract or AFSA rules. The evidence did not support a finding of irreparable harm, as any loss suffered by the applicant could be compensated by damages, and the workforce would be protected by SAFCOL's requirement that new service providers employ local labour. The balance of convenience favoured SAFCOL, as granting the interdict would leave its operations without essential silviculture services for an indefinite period. The applicant did not provide for the interim period pending arbitration nor tender any...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 387
Parties
Applicant: Basadi Baitsosa Consultants and Projects CC; Respondent: South African Forestry Company SOC Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Case Number
29193/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs reserved for determination in arbitration or by further application if arbitration does not proceed.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Contract Termination, Arbitration Clause, Breach of Contract
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Contract Termination Arbitration Clause Breach of Contract

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basadi Baitsosa Consultants and Projects CC

Applicant

South African Forestry Company SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining the respondent from appointing new service providers pending arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and absence of alternative remedy favour granting interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as it had not referred any dispute to arbitration nor formulated the disputes in accordance with the contract or AFSA rules. The evidence did not support a finding of irreparable harm, as any loss suffered by the applicant could be compensated by damages, and the workforce would be protected by SAFCOL's requirement that new service providers employ local labour. The balance of convenience favoured SAFCOL, as granting the interdict would leave its operations without essential silviculture services for an indefinite period. The applicant did not provide for the interim period pending arbitration nor tender any...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs reserved for determination in arbitration or by further application if arbitration does not proceed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall be costs in the intended arbitration between the parties.