Roux v University of Stellenbosch and Others (6577/22; 11368/15;) [2023] ZAWCHC 255 (13 October 2023)

Roux v University of Stellenbosch and Others (6577/22; 11368/15;) [2023] ZAWCHC 255 (13 October 2023)

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrators provided the applicant with a fair hearing and correctly applied the law to the facts. Errors of law, if any, did not result in unfairness or deprive the applicant of a fair trial. The requirement to plead and prove special damages was not a jurisdictional fact but related to the proof of damages, and the arbitrators correctly distinguished between general and special damages. The statutory regimes cited by the applicant did not abrogate common law remedies for breach of contract, and the applicant's conduct was found to be dishonest and in bad...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 255
Parties
Applicant: Jurie Wynand Roux; Respondent: University of Stellenbosch; Respondent: A R Sholto-Douglas SC N.O.; Respondent: CM Eloff SC N.O.; Respondent: Retired Justice LTC Harms N.O.; Respondent: M Van Der Nest SC N.O.; Respondent: Johannes Christiaan de Beer
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 October 2023
Case Number
6577/22; 11368/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
V C Saldanha
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Gross Irregularity, Special Damages, Onus of Proof, Development of Common Law, Employment Contract Breach
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Labour Law Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Special Damages Onus of Proof Development of Common Law +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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jurie Wynand Roux

Applicant

University of Stellenbosch

Respondent

A R Sholto-Douglas SC N.O.

Respondent

CM Eloff SC N.O.

Respondent

Retired Justice LTC Harms N.O.

Respondent

M Van Der Nest SC N.O.

Respondent

Johannes Christiaan de Beer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrators committed any gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether special damages should have been pleaded and proved by the University in an action for breach of employment contract.
  3. 3 Whether the onus to prove compensating benefits rested on the employer in the context of an employment contract breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrators provided the applicant with a fair hearing and correctly applied the law to the facts. Errors of law, if any, did not result in unfairness or deprive the applicant of a fair trial. The requirement to plead and prove special damages was not a jurisdictional fact but related to the proof of damages, and the arbitrators correctly distinguished between general and special damages. The statutory regimes cited by the applicant did not abrogate common law remedies for breach of contract, and the applicant's conduct was found to be dishonest and in bad...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.