Jenkins v Oram (AR460/11) [2012] ZAKZPHC 57 (30 August 2012)

Jenkins v Oram (AR460/11) [2012] ZAKZPHC 57 (30 August 2012)

The court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his mandate nor act irregularly in clarifying the award. The appellant's concession on these points was accepted. However, the court found that the award amount must be reduced by 50% of the bond obligation, as both parties were equally liable for the bond, and the arbitrator had already deducted the full bond amount from the purchase price. The correct amount of transfer duty was determined based on substantiated figures provided by the appellant's attorneys, and the costs of cancellation of the bond were deemed part of the costs of transfer. The appellant was permitted to provide a suitable guarantee in lieu of cash payment. The appeal...

Citation
[2012] ZAKZPHC 57
Parties
Appellant: Stuart Glen Jenkins; Respondent: Howard Ernest Oram
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2012
Case Number
AR460/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Making Arbitration Award an Order of Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of senior counsel. The order of the court a quo is replaced with a corrected order reflecting the reduced award and proper calculation of transfer duty and costs.
Judges
Gyanda, Mokgohloa, Lopes
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Enforcement, Partnership Property, Settlement Agreement, Costs of Transfer
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Award Enforcement Partnership Property Settlement Agreement Costs of Transfer

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Glen Jenkins

Appellant

Howard Ernest Oram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Making Arbitration Award an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator exceeded the terms of reference in making the award.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's clarification of the award constituted an irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the award should be reduced by 50% of the bond obligation as both parties were equally liable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his mandate nor act irregularly in clarifying the award. The appellant's concession on these points was accepted. However, the court found that the award amount must be reduced by 50% of the bond obligation, as both parties were equally liable for the bond, and the arbitrator had already deducted the full bond amount from the purchase price. The correct amount of transfer duty was determined based on substantiated figures provided by the appellant's attorneys, and the costs of cancellation of the bond were deemed part of the costs of transfer. The appellant was permitted to provide a suitable guarantee in lieu of cash payment. The appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of senior counsel. The order of the court a quo is replaced with a corrected order reflecting the reduced award and proper calculation of transfer duty and costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is replaced with an order directing the first respondent to pay R342,030.72, less 50% of the bond obligation, into the applicant's attorney's trust account, to be retained until registration of transfer, or to provide a suitable guarantee.