South Africa Case Law

Uniplate Investments Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Dieu Charis Enterprises (Pty) Limited and Others (2025/053282)

Uniplate Investments Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Dieu Charis Enterprises (Pty) Limited and Others (2025/053282) [2025] ZAGPJHC 429 (5 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/053282

Judge

Adams

The High Court struck an urgent application to stay arbitration proceedings from the roll, finding the alleged urgency was self-created and costs should follow.

• Stay Of Arbitration
• Urgency
• Self Created Urgency
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Arbitration Act
• Interim Interdict

Altech Radio Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Aeonova360 Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another

Altech Radio Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Aeonova360 Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another [2023] ZAGPJHC 1096 (29 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-032374

Judge

Moorcroft AJ

Leave to appeal was dismissed in an arbitration-related dispute involving an arbitral award set aside for gross irregularity and the arbitrator’s appointment.

• Leave To Appeal
• Arbitral Award Setting Aside
• Gross Irregularity
• Appointment Of Arbitrator
• Superior Courts Act
• Arbitration Act

Minister of International Relations and Co-Operation N.O and Another v Neo Thando/Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another (2020/45210; 2020/39944)

Minister of International Relations and Co-Operation N.O and Another v Neo Thando/Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another (2020/45210; 2020/39944) [2022] ZAGPPHC 762 (3 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2020/45210; 2020/39944

Judge

Mokose

The court found that the arbitrator was properly appointed and had jurisdiction to determine the dispute, as the applicants' failure to respond to the letter of demand constituted a rejection, thereby creating a dispute under the Arbitration Act. The referral to arbitration was valid under the SLA, which did not require mutual consent but allowed either party to refer a dispute. The court held that the dispute referred to arbitration was substantially the same as that ultimately served before the arbitrator, with the underlying causa unchanged. The applicants failed to demonstrate any gross i…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act
• Service Level Agreement
• Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator
• Condonation
• Gross Irregularity
• Specific Performance

Road Accident Fund v Mohlala Attorneys and Another (15478/2018)

Road Accident Fund v Mohlala Attorneys and Another (15478/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 560 (29 November 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15478/2018

Judge

Windell

High Court review of arbitration awards: the main award stood, the later award was set aside, and two outstanding issues were remitted to the arbitrator.

• Arbitration Act
• Service Level Agreement
• Repudiation
• Gross Irregularity
• Remittal Of Award
• Arbitration-review

State Information Technology Agency Soc Limited v ELCB Information Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (995/16)

State Information Technology Agency Soc Limited v ELCB Information Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (995/16) [2017] ZASCA 120 (22 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

995/16

Judges

Shongwe, Majiedt, Plasket, Tsoka, Rogers

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that none of the grounds advanced by the appellant constituted gross irregularities as contemplated by section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The appellant was not excluded from the arbitration; it voluntarily left the proceedings after its application was dismissed. The arbitrator was entitled to proceed in the appellant's absence. The respondent's version regarding the second agreement was plausible and supported by conduct and payments over several years. Letters of demand were sent, justifying the award of interest. The arbitrator provided written reaso…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Arbitration Act
• Contractual Dispute
• Award Enforcement

Mooikloof Estates (Pty) Limited v Van der Walt and Another (A700/15)

Mooikloof Estates (Pty) Limited v Van der Walt and Another (A700/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 482 (1 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A700/15

Judges

Tuchten, Tolmay, Mabuse

The court held that the arbitrator acted fairly and within the scope of the arbitration agreement and the Arbitration Act. Mooikloof Estates was not entitled to challenge the principal agent's decisions regarding extensions of time in the arbitration, as those decisions were made independently and impartially. The arbitrator's reduction of penalties was rational, based on considerations of fairness within the building industry, and did not rely on inadmissible evidence. The grounds advanced by Mooikloof for setting aside the award did not constitute gross irregularities as contemplated by sec…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act
• Gross Irregularity
• Building Contract Dispute
• Penalty Clauses
• Finality Of Arbitration Award

Kleinfontein Spaar en Krediet Kooperatief Beperk v Schmitz (24801/2013)

Kleinfontein Spaar en Krediet Kooperatief Beperk v Schmitz (24801/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 944 (3 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24801/2013

Judge

W R C Prinsloo

The court found that the loan agreement between the parties contained a comprehensive and binding arbitration clause, supported by a detailed dispute resolution procedure. The respondent initially insisted on arbitration and the applicant respected this, but the respondent later refused to cooperate, citing financial reasons rather than substantive grounds. The respondent's allegations of fraud and illegality were not substantiated by specific facts and did not establish that the contract was void ab initio or that the arbitration clause was invalid. The court distinguished the present case f…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Agreement
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Contract Enforceability
• Fraud And Misrepresentation
• Arbitration Act
• Discretion Of Court

Lawrence v Mutual and federal (Pty) Ltd and Another (JA77/2014)

Lawrence v Mutual and federal (Pty) Ltd and Another (JA77/2014) [2016] ZALAC 45 (15 September 2016)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA77/2014

Judges

Tlaletsi, Coppin, Makgoka

Labour Appeal Court upheld dismissal of a review of a private arbitration award, finding no reviewable irregularity and no basis to interfere with costs.

• Private Arbitration Review
• Unfair Dismissal
• Remedies For Unfair Dismissal
• Costs Discretion
• Arbitration Act
• Section 193 Lra

Brookstein v Brookstein (20808/2014)

Brookstein v Brookstein (20808/2014) [2016] ZASCA 40; 2016 (5) SA 210 (SCA) (24 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20808/2014

Judges

Maya, Swain, Tsoka, Baartman, Kathree-Setiloane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent’s delictual claim for damages, based on fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation and non-disclosure of the true value of the accrual, was not a matrimonial cause or a matter incidental to such cause as contemplated in s 2 of the Arbitration Act. The marriage and all proprietary consequences had been disposed of by the court order incorporating the settlement agreement, rendering the matrimonial cause res judicata. The delictual claim arose independently and was susceptible to arbitration. Regarding the date for determining the value of acc…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Accrual System
• Delictual Claim
• Arbitration Act
• Non Disclosure
• Misrepresentation

Blastrite (Pty) Ltd v Genpaco Ltd; In re: Genpaco Ltd v Blastrite (Pty) Ltd (4530/15)

Blastrite (Pty) Ltd v Genpaco Ltd; In re: Genpaco Ltd v Blastrite (Pty) Ltd (4530/15) [2015] ZAWCHC 76; 2016 (2) SA 622 (WCC) (1 June 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4530/15

Judge

Schippers

The court found that the respondent, a peregrinus, had instituted proceedings in South Africa and previously furnished security for costs. The applicant sought an increase in security due to the arbitration proceeding. The respondent was able to provide the additional security and would not be prevented from pursuing its claim. The court held that the practice of requiring security for costs from a peregrinus is rational, serves a legitimate purpose, and does not amount to unfair discrimination or violate the right to equality under the Constitution. The discretion to order security must be e…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Arbitration Act
• Peregrinus Litigant
• Constitutional Right To Equality