Sandenbergh v Sandenbergh (293/2004) [2006] ZANCHC 27 (28 April 2006)

Sandenbergh v Sandenbergh (293/2004) [2006] ZANCHC 27 (28 April 2006)

The court held that the respondent-farmer had shown good cause for the extension of the statutory time limit for the arbitration award, as the delays were primarily caused by the appellant's lack of cooperation and obstruction. The mere referral of the dispute to arbitration, as required by the settlement agreement and evidenced by correspondence with the arbitrator, was sufficient to suspend prescription under section 13(1)(f) of the Prescription Act. The substitution of the arbitrator was justified due to the withdrawal of the original arbitrator and the appellant's failure to suggest alternatives. The security for costs provided by the appellant, though unusual in form, was deemed...

Citation
[2006] ZANCHC 27
Parties
Appellant: L Sandenbergh; Respondent: H A Sandenbergh
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2006
Case Number
293/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the application under Rule 49(13).
Judges
Kgomo, Majiedt, Molwantwa
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act Extension, Prescription Act Application, Security for Costs, Settlement Agreement Enforcement
Civil Procedure Land and Property Arbitration Act Extension Prescription Act Application Security for Costs Settlement Agreement Enforcement

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

Parties

L Sandenbergh

Appellant

H A Sandenbergh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo correctly granted an extension of the statutory time limit for making an arbitration award under section 23 of the Arbitration Act.
  2. 2 Whether the substitution of the arbitrator was justified.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent-farmer showed good cause for the extension despite delays.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent-farmer had shown good cause for the extension of the statutory time limit for the arbitration award, as the delays were primarily caused by the appellant's lack of cooperation and obstruction. The mere referral of the dispute to arbitration, as required by the settlement agreement and evidenced by correspondence with the arbitrator, was sufficient to suspend prescription under section 13(1)(f) of the Prescription Act. The substitution of the arbitrator was justified due to the withdrawal of the original arbitrator and the appellant's failure to suggest alternatives. The security for costs provided by the appellant, though unusual in form, was deemed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the application under Rule 49(13).

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of the application under Rule 49(13).