Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706) [2025] ZAGPJHC 212 (5 March 2025)

Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706) [2025] ZAGPJHC 212 (5 March 2025)

The court held that none of the grounds advanced by the applicants individually or collectively amounted to a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration. The arbitrator was entitled to apply the expedited rules, and the applicants were aware of their procedural obligations. The refusal to postpone was a discretionary decision and did not deprive the applicants of a fair hearing. The arbitrator did not make any ruling preventing representation, and the amendment to the award was immaterial. The applicants' own dilatory conduct and decision to leave the proceedings led to their predicament. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 212
Parties
Applicant: Moses Sipho Mampuru; Applicant: Noko Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mampuru Waste Management (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Noko Packaging (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Craig Andrew Bowman; Respondent: Adv Schalk Aucamp N.O.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2025
Case Number
2024/008706
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Gross Irregularity, Arbitration Act Section 33, Postponement Discretion, Discovery Procedure
Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Arbitration Act Section 33 Postponement Discretion Discovery Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Sipho Mampuru

Applicant

Noko Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mampuru Waste Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Noko Packaging (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Craig Andrew Bowman

Respondent

Adv Schalk Aucamp N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to postpone the arbitration constituted a ground for review under section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the application of the AFSA expedited rules without express agreement was irregular.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of the grounds advanced by the applicants individually or collectively amounted to a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration. The arbitrator was entitled to apply the expedited rules, and the applicants were aware of their procedural obligations. The refusal to postpone was a discretionary decision and did not deprive the applicants of a fair hearing. The arbitrator did not make any ruling preventing representation, and the amendment to the award was immaterial. The applicants' own dilatory conduct and decision to leave the proceedings led to their predicament. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The late filing of the application is condoned.
  • The application is dismissed.