LL Security CC and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (1253/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 13 (29 January 2019)

LL Security CC and Another v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (1253/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 13 (29 January 2019)

The court found that the relief sought by the applicants, although framed as interim, was in substance final because the contracts would expire before arbitration could be concluded. The applicants failed to place the arbitration clauses before the court or demonstrate that the arbitration could be completed within the remaining contract period. Furthermore, the applicants conceded that they could not establish a clear right to the relief sought due to factual disputes regarding contract rectification. As a result, the applicants did not meet the requirements for either interim or final interdictory relief, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 13
Parties
Applicant: LL Security CC; Applicant: Mposha Security Services CC; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Case Number
1253/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van der Linde
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Contract Rectification, Arbitration Clause, Contract Cancellation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Contract Rectification Arbitration Clause Contract Cancellation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LL Security CC

Applicant

Mposha Security Services CC

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict restraining the respondent from implementing the cancellation of security services contracts.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought is truly interim or final in effect.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a clear right to the relief sought given the factual disputes regarding contract rectification.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relief sought by the applicants, although framed as interim, was in substance final because the contracts would expire before arbitration could be concluded. The applicants failed to place the arbitration clauses before the court or demonstrate that the arbitration could be completed within the remaining contract period. Furthermore, the applicants conceded that they could not establish a clear right to the relief sought due to factual disputes regarding contract rectification. As a result, the applicants did not meet the requirements for either interim or final interdictory relief, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.