Coetzee v Paltex 1995 (PTY) limited (9764/2001) [2002] ZAWCHC 26; 2003 (1) SA 78 (C) (8 May 2002)

Coetzee v Paltex 1995 (PTY) limited (9764/2001) [2002] ZAWCHC 26; 2003 (1) SA 78 (C) (8 May 2002)

The court found that the respondent's counter-application to set aside the arbitration awards and remit the dispute for rehearing was time-barred under the Arbitration Act. The evidence presented by Mackness did not constitute 'corruption' as contemplated by section 33(2) of the Act, as corruption refers to the manner in which the award was procured, not to false evidence given by a witness. The affidavits did not contain material, weighty, and practically conclusive evidence sufficient to justify remittal for further hearing. Furthermore, respondent failed to provide a comprehensive and satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the application, and thus did not show good cause...

Citation
[2002] ZAWCHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Clive Eric Coetzee; Respondent: Paltex 1995 (PTY) Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2002
Case Number
9764/2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Make Arbitration Awards Orders of Court; Counter Application to Set Aside Awards and Remit Dispute for Rehearing
Outcome
Respondent's counter-application is dismissed. The arbitration awards are made orders of court.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, Remittal of Evidence, Time Bar, Corruption in Arbitration, Contractual Bribery
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 Remittal of Evidence Time Bar Corruption in Arbitration Contractual Bribery

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Eric Coetzee

Applicant

Paltex 1995 (PTY) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Make Arbitration Awards Orders of Court; Counter Application to Set Aside Awards and Remit Dispute for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's counter-application to set aside the arbitration awards and remit the dispute for rehearing is time-barred under the Arbitration Act.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented by respondent constitutes 'corruption' as contemplated by section 33(2) of the Arbitration Act, thereby extending the time period for application.
  3. 3 Whether the affidavits of Mackness contain material, weighty, and practically conclusive evidence justifying remittal for further hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's counter-application to set aside the arbitration awards and remit the dispute for rehearing was time-barred under the Arbitration Act. The evidence presented by Mackness did not constitute 'corruption' as contemplated by section 33(2) of the Act, as corruption refers to the manner in which the award was procured, not to false evidence given by a witness. The affidavits did not contain material, weighty, and practically conclusive evidence sufficient to justify remittal for further hearing. Furthermore, respondent failed to provide a comprehensive and satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the application, and thus did not show good cause...

Court Disposition

Respondent's counter-application is dismissed. The arbitration awards are made orders of court.

Orders

  • The counter-application of respondent is dismissed.
  • The award handed down by Hon. Ms Justice Van den Heever on 9 March 2001 and the award made on the arbitration appeal by Hon. Messrs Justice Corbett and Grosskopf on 31 October 2001 are made orders of this Court.