Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd (26/05) [2006] ZASCA 112; [2006] 139 SCA (RSA) ; 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA); [2007] 2 All SA 243 (SCA); 2007 (5) BCLR 503 (SCA) (22 November 2006)

Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd (26/05) [2006] ZASCA 112; [2006] 139 SCA (RSA) ; 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA); [2007] 2 All SA 243 (SCA); 2007 (5) BCLR 503 (SCA) (22 November 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator did not commit any reviewable gross irregularity or exceed his powers under section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator properly interpreted the Integrated Agreement, applied South African law, and made factual findings within his mandate. Alleged errors in interpretation, application of the Shifren doctrine, or reliance on evidence were errors within jurisdiction and not reviewable. The arbitrator's refusal to state a case under section 20 and his handling of the London agreement did not result in procedural unfairness. The finding of repudiation and dismissal of Telkom's counterclaims were justified on the pleadings and...

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 112
Parties
Appellant: Telcordia Technologies Inc; Respondent: Telkom SA Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2006
Case Number
26/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Reviewing and Setting Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld; high court order set aside; application for review dismissed with costs, including costs of three counsel.
Judges
Harms, Conradie, Cloete, Lewis, Ponnan
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act 1965, Gross Irregularity, Contractual Interpretation, Non Variation Clause, Repudiation, Party Autonomy
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Act 1965 Gross Irregularity Contractual Interpretation Non Variation Clause Repudiation +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Telcordia Technologies Inc

Appellant

Telkom SA Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Reviewing and Setting Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed gross irregularity or exceeded his powers under section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator misconceived the nature of the inquiry or his duties in interpreting the Integrated Agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator breached an undertaking to hear further evidence on the London agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator did not commit any reviewable gross irregularity or exceed his powers under section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator properly interpreted the Integrated Agreement, applied South African law, and made factual findings within his mandate. Alleged errors in interpretation, application of the Shifren doctrine, or reliance on evidence were errors within jurisdiction and not reviewable. The arbitrator's refusal to state a case under section 20 and his handling of the London agreement did not result in procedural unfairness. The finding of repudiation and dismissal of Telkom's counterclaims were justified on the pleadings and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; high court order set aside; application for review dismissed with costs, including costs of three counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including those consequent on the employment of three counsel, which shall also be allowed in relation to the different stages of the application for leave to appeal.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of three counsel.'