NTGR Engineering Projects CC v Bakubung Minerals (Pty) Ltd (1890/2021) [2025] ZANWHC 126 (25 July 2025)

NTGR Engineering Projects CC v Bakubung Minerals (Pty) Ltd (1890/2021) [2025] ZANWHC 126 (25 July 2025)

The court found that while the contract contained an arbitration clause, such a clause does not oust the court's jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is sourced from the Constitution. The Defendant, by consenting in writing to the referral of the dispute to court and participating in the proceedings without objecting or applying for a stay, waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause. The proceedings had reached an advanced stage, and referring the matter to arbitration would not serve the interests of justice or convenience. The Defendant's special pleas regarding arbitration and jurisdiction were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.

Citation
[2025] ZANWHC 126
Parties
Plaintiff: NTGR Engineering Projects CC; Defendant: Bakubung Minerals (Pty) Ltd
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2025
Case Number
1890/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea Hearing
Outcome
Special pleas dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
Judges
T C Mokhare
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause, Stay of Proceedings, Contractual Waiver, Jurisdiction, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Arbitration Clause Stay of Proceedings Contractual Waiver Jurisdiction Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NTGR Engineering Projects CC

Plaintiff

Bakubung Minerals (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration clause in the contract ousts the court's jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is estopped from invoking the arbitration clause after consenting to court proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether it is convenient and in the interests of justice to refer the dispute to arbitration at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the contract contained an arbitration clause, such a clause does not oust the court's jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is sourced from the Constitution. The Defendant, by consenting in writing to the referral of the dispute to court and participating in the proceedings without objecting or applying for a stay, waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause. The proceedings had reached an advanced stage, and referring the matter to arbitration would not serve the interests of justice or convenience. The Defendant's special pleas regarding arbitration and jurisdiction were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Special pleas dismissed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.

Orders

  • The special pleas are dismissed.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff’s costs on a party and party basis on Scale B.