Zelpy 1866 (Pty) Ltd v Gomes (24014/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 34 (17 February 2014)

Zelpy 1866 (Pty) Ltd v Gomes (24014/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 34 (17 February 2014)

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for invoking the ADR clause in the lease agreement. The existence of a dispute was established through the correspondence and affidavits, and the dispute fell within the ambit of the ADR clause. The respondent failed to make out a strong case for refusing the stay, and the court exercised its discretion in favour of granting the stay of proceedings pending adjudication as provided for in the lease agreement. Costs were awarded to the applicant on a party and party scale.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 34
Parties
Applicant: Zelpy 1866 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rosa Gomes
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2014
Case Number
24014/2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Stay Application Heard and Disposed of Prior to Main Application
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings granted; main application stayed pending adjudication; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
A Y Bhayat
Legal Topics
Alternative Dispute Resolution Clause, Stay of Proceedings, Lease Agreement Dispute
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Clause Stay of Proceedings Lease Agreement Dispute

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zelpy 1866 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Rosa Gomes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Stay Application Heard and Disposed of Prior to Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alternative dispute resolution clause in the lease agreement applies to the dispute between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements to invoke the ADR clause and obtain a stay of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has demonstrated exceptional circumstances to refuse the stay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for invoking the ADR clause in the lease agreement. The existence of a dispute was established through the correspondence and affidavits, and the dispute fell within the ambit of the ADR clause. The respondent failed to make out a strong case for refusing the stay, and the court exercised its discretion in favour of granting the stay of proceedings pending adjudication as provided for in the lease agreement. Costs were awarded to the applicant on a party and party scale.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings granted; main application stayed pending adjudication; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The Application for Stay of the Proceedings is granted.
  • The application instituted by the respondent under case no. 24014/2013 is stayed pending the determination of the dispute by an adjudicator as provided for in clause 25 of the lease agreement.